Social Justice and Islam

[gnostic]

Mohamed was a hero in the eyes of slaves at that time, and as i explained before, it wasn't suitable at that time to abolish slavery as a whole.

I am not discounting him that he was a hero for any group, freemen or slaves.

I don't it was Muhammad's intention to abolish slavery, because he himself not only bought slaves or gain them through the spoils of battle, but that actually decreed that women and children of Medina were to be sold as slaves, most likely so they could buy weapons and supply for his warriors.

And before you criticise me, let me say that you can't put modern morality on Muhammad, because Muhammad was living in the age, where slavery was acceptable. It was not deemed wrong to buy and sell slaves at that time.

But from our perspectives, this would be considered immoral, because time have changed, where slavery is outlawed internationally. For you to say Muhammad desired to abolish slavery (but couldn't), as one of his wishes, I would have to say this is not true, because you don't know what he wished. It is wishful thinking and baseless, and certainly not true.

The only possible thing THAT COULD BE TRUE, is that he desired Muslims not sell or buy other Muslims as slaves. That doesn't mean he wish to abolish it. No, slavery acceptable to him, but only for non-Muslims. And the aftermath of Medina is clear indication or evidence that he had no desire to abolish slavery.

 

[kai]

Mohamed was a hero in the eyes of slaves at that time, and as i explained before, it wasn't suitable at that time to abolish slavery as a whole.



I disagree.



Don't mention it kai, i always welcome and value genuine discussions.

I agree that Muslims were at the very top for hundreds of years, but you are discrediting the progress done by humanity as a whole. The Quran doesn't stress that Muslims are superior just for being Muslims but for doing what is best for everybody around them. Quran speaks to the entire humanity, and don't forget that as Muslims we believe that Allah has revealed previous revelations to Jews, Christians, etc, and have sent Prophets to all nations without exception, so his guidance is not just to Muslims but to humanity as a whole.

That's why the topic is not "Social Justice in Islamic Societies" but just "Social Justice and Islam".

I really like the relative social justice you have in the many parts of the Western world which Muslims themselves acknowledge and are impressed with. That's why it was natural for many Muslims--even the religious ones--to live in these progressive just societies. I already mentioned before to you that in Islam, we would prefer to live under a just non-Muslim ruler instead of a non-just Muslim ruler.

Thus, in this topic we are not discussing what Muslims COULD or COULD NOT achieve but what ISLAM itself is capable of achieving in principle.

Islam in Principle then is capable of abolishing slavery by the process of making everyone Muslims. There was no intention at any time of forbidding slavery altogether just not enslaving other Muslims. Thats social justice for Muslims.Even at the height of Muslim civilaisation "the Golden Age" non Muslims were still taken as slaves.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am not discounting him that he was a hero for any group, freemen or slaves.

I don't it was Muhammad's intention to abolish slavery, because he himself not only bought slaves or gain them through the spoils of battle, but that actually decreed that women and children of Medina were to be sold as slaves, most likely so they could buy weapons and supply for his warriors.

And before you criticise me, let me say that you can't put modern morality on Muhammad, because Muhammad was living in the age, where slavery was acceptable. It was not deemed wrong to buy and sell slaves at that time.

But from our perspectives, this would be considered immoral, because time have changed, where slavery is outlawed internationally. For you to say Muhammad desired to abolish slavery (but couldn't), as one of his wishes, I would have to say this is not true, because you don't know what he wished. It is wishful thinking and baseless, and certainly not true.

The only possible thing THAT COULD BE TRUE, is that he desired Muslims not sell or buy other Muslims as slaves. That doesn't mean he wish to abolish it. No, slavery acceptable to him, but only for non-Muslims. And the aftermath of Medina is clear indication or evidence that he had no desire to abolish slavery.

I never understand this argument concerning ancient prophets that "it was acceptable for them to do X in their time."

So what? If they really are *divine* then their morality should be timeless. This isn't specific to Mohammed but to any such claims that Y prophet shouldn't be critiqued for X action because it was "acceptable at the time." That's a terrible argument IMO and speaks poorly of their so-called divine nature or prophet status. I'm pretty sure the big guy upstairs would be telling them X is wrong rather than something like "well I don't like X, but since people during your time are doing it then I guess it's ok!"

It's also interesting from another perspective. I'll use Mohammed as an example: why is Mohammed able to go against a norm at the time (worshipping idols) but not another one (slavery)? Why do we say "aha, he stood up against society and said NO to worshipping idols, what a hero!" but when it comes to slavery or with marrying a very young woman people say "oh it was the norm at the time, we can't criticize him for that?"

 

[Badran]

I never understand this argument concerning ancient prophets that "it was acceptable for them to do X in their time."

So what? If they really are *divine* then their morality should be timeless. This isn't specific to Mohammed but to any such claims that Y prophet shouldn't be critiqued for X action because it was "acceptable at the time." That's a terrible argument IMO and speaks poorly of their so-called divine nature or prophet status.

I agree. Thats not the argument being made here however. At least not by me.

Just because something was considered good by society, indeed doesn't mean that the supposed prophet in question should accept it as good. And thats not what Muhammad (pbuh) did.

I'm pretty sure the big guy upstairs would be telling them X is wrong rather than something like "well I don't like X, but since people during your time are doing it then I guess it's ok!"

Again, i agree. And thats not what Allah did or said in this case.

There is a difference between conditioned allowance for a certain wrong to continue for a while, due to certain circumstances, and between accepting that thing as good and okay since people accept it.

It's also interesting from another perspective. I'll use Mohammed as an example: why is Mohammed able to go against a norm at the time (worshipping idols) but not another one (slavery)?

May be because both things are different, and will have a completely different impact on the society at that time.

Why did the quran at first say that its only prohibited to pray while drunk?

Since Allah said in the end that we shouldn't drink wine at all, then he already knows its bad. How did he allow a bad thing to still be done, but conditioned? Does that mean he accepted wine as a good thing, or that the prophet did?

No, but it was meant to help the community in the change process. It was practical. The same applies here with the difference of slavery being an extremely bigger deal, much harder to overcome, and having serious impact on society. Which would require even more of that process, and even more allowance.

It did however, state clearly in other instances, that all people are equal, and that nothing makes a difference between people except their actions.

EDIT: I know you might have been referencing what you quoted only, but i'm sharing this with you in case you wanted to discuss the issue in question here in general.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why did the quran at first say that its only prohibited to pray while drunk?

Since Allah said in the end that we shouldn't drink wine at all, then he already knows its bad. How did he allow a bad thing to still be done, but conditioned? Does that mean he accepted wine as a good thing, or that the prophet did?

No, but it was meant to help the community in the change process. It was practical. The same applies here with the difference of slavery being an extremely bigger deal, much harder to overcome, and having serious impact on society. Which would require even more of that process, and even more allowance.

It did however, state clearly in other instances, that all people are equal, and that nothing makes a difference between people except their actions.

EDIT: I know you might have been referencing what you quoted only, but i'm sharing this with you in case you wanted to discuss the issue in question here in general.

That makes sense to me, but at least the book does eventually ban alcohol for its believers. Does it ever come out and directly say that slavery is wrong and should be a practice that's stopped?

It seems to me that it's a much bigger deal for people to know that slavery displeases Allah (if I may be presumptuous) than to know imbibing alcohol does. Slavery destroys lives and severely limits the quality of life even with "good" and "kind" masters. I think it would be pretty important to jot that down in the ol' Holy Text.

I get the practicality argument -- you can't just turn everyone free and say "there ya go!" because that would cause a lot of damage in the economy and industry. But I'd think it would be supremely important to implement a plan that definitively stops the practice forever and makes everyone extremely aware of its inhumanity and immorality.

 

[kai]

That makes sense to me, but at least the book does eventually ban alcohol for its believers. Does it ever come out and directly say that slavery is wrong and should be a practice that's stopped?

It seems to me that it's a much bigger deal for people to know that slavery displeases Allah (if I may be presumptuous) than to know imbibing alcohol does. Slavery destroys lives and severely limits the quality of life even with "good" and "kind" masters. I think it would be pretty important to jot that down in the ol' Holy Text.

I get the practicality argument -- you can't just turn everyone free and say "there ya go!" because that would cause a lot of damage in the economy and industry. But I'd think it would be supremely important to implement a plan that definitively stops the practice forever and makes everyone extremely aware of its inhumanity and immorality.

As i see it enslaving Muslims was wrong and should be a practice thats stopped, go figure.

 

[Badran]

That makes sense to me, but at least the book does eventually ban alcohol for its believers. Does it ever come out and directly say that slavery is wrong and should be a practice that's stopped?

Not flat out condemning owning slaves, but i will explain something in the last part of this post.

It seems to me that it's a much bigger deal for people to know that slavery displeases Allah (if I may be presumptuous) than to know imbibing alcohol does.

I agree.

I get the practicality argument -- you can't just turn everyone free and say "there ya go!" because that would cause a lot of damage in the economy and industry.

Thats exactly what i mean.

But I'd think it would be supremely important to implement a plan that definitively stops the practice forever and makes everyone extremely aware of its inhumanity and immorality.

And thats exactly what was done. While not condemning it flat out, two things were done. One, the gradual elevation of the status of slaves. Giving them more rights and emphasizing they must be treated well, giving them the choice and ability to set themselves free etc...

Two, clarifying like i mentioned that all people are equal. Emphasizing that no type of human is better than another. Then also saying in many instances of the Quran that we should free slaves as a means to redeem ourselves and things along those lines.

Also, like have been mentioned here probably more than once, Muslims at the beginning did go according to that plan fully. And thousands of slaves were freed based upon that, Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since it was not going to be abolished right away, and since this was approached in the manner i described, it wouldn't make sense in the same time to say slavery is wrong and whoever participates in it will suffer etc... But one last time, it didn't leave the concept untouched, it did clarify that all people are equal, and encourage directly and indirectly those people to rid themselves of that deeply rooted practice in their society and the world in general at that time.

Alcohol on the other hand is much simpler and easier of a problem to handle, than this case, or in comparison to it.

 

[Meow Mix]

And thats exactly what was done. While not condemning it flat out, two things were done. One, the gradual elevation of the status of slaves. Giving them more rights and emphasizing they must be treated well, giving them the choice and ability to set themselves free etc...

Two, clarifying like i mentioned that all people are equal. Emphasizing that no type of human is better than another. Then also saying in many instances of the Quran that we should free slaves as a means to redeem ourselves and things along those lines.

Also, like have been mentioned here probably more than once, Muslims at the beginning did go according to that plan fully. And thousands of slaves were freed based upon that, Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since it was not going to be abolished right away, and since this was approached in the manner i described, it wouldn't make sense in the same time to say slavery is wrong and whoever participates in it will suffer etc... But one last time, it didn't leave the concept untouched, it did clarify that all people are equal, and encourage directly and indirectly those people to rid themselves of that deeply rooted practice in their society and the world in general at that time.

Alcohol on the other hand is much simpler and easier of a problem to handle, than this case, or in comparison to it.

I can appreciate the points you've made, and that may be the case. I'm just saying that it seems prudent to me to at least insert a little ditty somewhere that says something like, "It's already established that all people should be equal, but to be more clear, a plan should be implemented immediately that will abolish slavery forever. Within 100 years I better not see any more slavery being practiced by my followers, that should be sufficient time to get your affairs in order."

The reason I think such a statement should be made so clear is because it's obvious from many religions that humans are pretty fallible when it comes to holy texts -- they argue what this and that means. Shouldn't an omniscient being know that there will be confusion about it and make things crystal clear to us confused humans?

That was more rhetorical than anything -- I understand that you believe the Quran does already put its foot down on slavery and that it's clear enough. I'm just saying that it seems to me an omniscient being would understand human confusions and make something so important much more clear.

 

[Bismillah]

I don't it was Muhammad's intention to abolish slavery, because he himself not only bought slaves or gain them through the spoils of battle, but that actually decreed that women and children of Medina were to be sold as slaves, most likely so they could buy weapons and supply for his warriors.

If you bothered reading through my response you would know just how big of a booty these "spoils of war" were or the fact that he freed every slave under his possession.

And before you criticise me, let me say that you can't put modern morality on Muhammad, because Muhammad was living in the age, where slavery was acceptable. It was not deemed wrong to buy and sell slaves at that time.

Not true, if it was accepted then Islam would have placed no laws pertaining to the freedom of prisoners of war.

But from our perspectives, this would be considered immoral, because time have changed, where slavery is outlawed internationally. For you to say Muhammad desired to abolish slavery (but couldn't), as one of his wishes, I would have to say this is not true, because you don't know what he wished. It is wishful thinking and baseless, and certainly not true.

It's true, we don't know what the Prophet was thinking. We do know that in Islam certain conditions were imposed so as to render the term "slave" disingenuous.

The only possible thing THAT COULD BE TRUE, is that he desired Muslims not sell or buy other Muslims as slaves. That doesn't mean he wish to abolish it. No, slavery acceptable to him, but only for non-Muslims. And the aftermath of Medina is clear indication or evidence that he had no desire to abolish slavery.

Why don't you highlight a specific incident, saying blandly "Medina" sounds like you are saying he enslaved the Ansar on his arrival.

 

[Bismillah]

That makes sense to me, but at least the book does eventually ban alcohol for its believers. Does it ever come out and directly say that slavery is wrong and should be a practice that's stopped?

What do you mean "slavery"? There was never any concept of the Western sense of slavery in Islam, you are trying to use lables that don't fit or forcing the square into the cylinder hole.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...4-post389.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...4-post389.html

 

[Badran]

I can appreciate the points you've made, and that may be the case. I'm just saying that it seems prudent to me to at least insert a little ditty somewhere that says something like, "It's already established that all people should be equal, but to be more clear, a plan should be implemented immediately that will abolish slavery forever. Within 100 years I better not see any more slavery being practiced by my followers, that should be sufficient time to get your affairs in order."

The reason I think such a statement should be made so clear is because it's obvious from many religions that humans are pretty fallible when it comes to holy texts -- they argue what this and that means. Shouldn't an omniscient being know that there will be confusion about it and make things crystal clear to us confused humans?

That was more rhetorical than anything -- I understand that you believe the Quran does already put its foot down on slavery and that it's clear enough. I'm just saying that it seems to me an omniscient being would understand human confusions and make something so important much more clear.

I can see your point and its quite a fair one. I can understand if you'd think it could've been more clear. I don't have a clear answer to that, but rather some thoughts addressing possibilities.

Before i share them, i still i understand that you could still in the end think it could've been much more clear, and i have absolutely no problem with that, just sharing basically.

For one thing, i think that its reasonable to assume, that the way this same book we're talking about was perceived by people 1400 years ago, is at least, considerably different in some departments than how we perceive it right now. Our perception affects what we see, they were considerably different than us, and i expect their perception to be just so as well.

For a society that already viewed slaves as totally okay. Completely normal and merely a part of the social structure. This might've been then a loud and clear message. People were already threatened by some of the changes that was brought by Islam at the time, and based on my poor knowledge i understand that this was one of the things that made many problems for many people, including accepting the "preposterous" idea that they should be all the same. So like i said this actually might have been a very clear message, to them.

That might have been the case.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can see your point and its quite a fair one. I can understand if you'd think it could've been more clear. I don't have a clear answer to that, but rather some thoughts addressing possibilities.

Before i share them, i still i understand that you could still in the end think it could've been much more clear, and i have absolutely no problem with that, just sharing basically.

For one thing, i think that its reasonable to assume, that the way this same book we're talking about was perceived by people 1400 years ago, is at least, considerably different in some departments than how we perceive it right now. Our perception affects what we see, they were considerably different than us, and i expect their perception to be just so as well.

For a society that already viewed slaves as totally okay. Completely normal and merely a part of the social structure. This might've been then a loud and clear message. People were already threatened by some of the changes that was brought by Islam at the time, and based on my poor knowledge i understand that this was one of the things that made many problems for many people, including accepting the "preposterous" idea that they should be all the same. So like i said this actually might have been a very clear message, to them.

That might have been the case.

You may be right. :rainbow1:

I think this is just a case where we're coming from different viewpoints, but I'm happy to see that we have no trouble putting ourselves in each other's shoes. Good discussion!

 

[Marble]

Islam doesn't punish people because they can't help but to be in a certain way. In general, what applies to non-legal heterosexual (premarital sex, adultery, etc) also applies to homosexual acts.

But when homosexuals are not allowed to marry, their sexual acts are allways premartial.

 

[Bismillah]

But when homosexuals are not allowed to marry, their sexual acts are allways premartial.

Except for the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry in Islam.

 

[Marble]

Except for the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry in Islam.

That's what I mean: Because marriage will never happen, their sexual acts will always be premartial.

 

[Bismillah]

That's what I mean: Because marriage will never happen, their sexual acts will always be premartial.

Who is confining gays to Islam? Obviously homosexuals have no interest in being Muslim.

 

[England my lionheart]

Who is confining gays to Islam? Obviously homosexuals have no interest in being Muslim.

Well they do BBC News - Imams help gay Muslims embrace new social identities

 

[Marble]

Who is confining gays to Islam? Obviously homosexuals have no interest in being Muslim.

Perhaps gay people have no or little interest in conversion to Islam, but what about those who are born as Muslims?
They did not choose to be born in a Muslim family, they did not choose to be gay.

 

[Chisti]

Perhaps gay people have no or little interest in conversion to Islam, but what about those who are born as Muslims?
They did not choose to be born in a Muslim family, they did not choose to be gay.

That's a good point. Muslims, plus other religions too, must try to be tolerant of gay people and not treat them like they're any different.

 

[kai]

What do you mean "slavery"? There was never any concept of the Western sense of slavery in Islam, you are trying to use lables that don't fit or forcing the square into the cylinder hole.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...4-post389.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...4-post389.html
[/I]

yeah thats the theory.

You can state all you like there never was any concept of slavery in the western sense in Islam, but there certainly was a concept of slavery in Islam.



For a variety of reasons, internal growth of the slave population was not enough to fulfill the demand in Muslim society. This resulted in massive importation, which involved enormous suffering and loss of life from the capture and transportation of slaves from non-Muslim lands.[8] In theory, slavery in Islamic law does not have a racial or color component, although this has not always been the case in practice



Islamic views on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historians say the Arab slave trade lasted more than a millennium.[44] As recently as the early 1960s, Saudi Arabia’s slave population was estimated at 300,000.[45] Along with Yemen, the Saudis only abolished slavery in 1962.[46] Slaves in the Arab World came from many different regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa (mainly Zanj),[47] the Caucasus (mainly Circassians),[48] Central Asia (mainly Tartars), and Central and Eastern Europe (mainly Saqaliba).[49]
Ibn Battuta tells us several times that he was given or purchased slaves.[50] The great 14th-century scholar Ibn Khaldun, wrote: "the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Blacks) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals...".[51] Slaves were purchased or captured on the frontiers of the Islamic world and then imported to the major centers, where there were slave markets from which they were widely distributed.[52][53][54] In the 9th and 10th centuries, the black Zanj slaves may have constituted at least a half of the total population in lower Iraq.[55] At the same time, many tens of thousands of slaves in the region were also imported from Central Asia and the Caucasus.[56]
Under Omani Arabs Zanzibar became East Africa's main slave port, with as many as 50,000 enslaved Africans passing through every year during the 19th century.[57][58] Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD.[2][59][60] Eduard Rüppell described the heavy mortality of the enslaved Sudanese before reaching Egypt: "after the Daftardar bey's 1822 campaign in the southern Nuba mountains, nearly 40,000 slaves were captured. However, through bad treatment, disease and desert travel barely 5000 made it to Egypt."[61]
Central and Eastern European slaves were generally known as Saqaliba (i.e., Slavs).[62] The Moors, starting in the 8th century, also raided coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean, and became known as the Barbary pirates.[63] It is estimated that they captured 1.25 million white slaves from Western Europe and North America between the 16th and 19th centuries.[64][65] The mortality rate was very high. For instance, when plague broke out in Algiers' overcrowded slave pens in 1662, some said that it carried off 10,000–20,000 of the city's 30,000 captives.[66]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Middle_East