Hello Sprinkles
While I did find it interesting, it didn't fundamentally tell me anything new, or contradict what I have already said. Sure, Islam has a very charitable and humane view of slaves, perhaps much more humane than other philosophies. But, the ancient Islamic view towards slaves is not so charitable, and not so humane, as the view that most rational people accept today. To "possess" people "by your right hand" is wrong in itself, even if you treat your property humanely and even if you eventually set them free. Surely you agree?
What do you mean the ancient Islamic view? I have cited, in all my examples, either the Qur'an or the four rightly guided Caliphs. Like I have told Auto from the time of Banu Umayya the rule of Shariah ended, period. That is the ancient Islamic view, now the view that so many Muslim despots took to further their wealth is something different.
What is wrong to posses with your right hand? I have explained the necessity of slavery during the time, simply freeing the enemy while they held Muslims in captivity killed them, tortured them, and raped them would be unrealistic. It would lead to the subjugation of the Ummah and the dissolution of Islam, put simply there would be no Islam in the modern world had it not been for the practical nature of our religion.
It's not eventually setting them free. These are people who have opposed you and vowed to kill you. Who have used treachery and deceit and broken their words. And still they were not killed. They were treated as humans. And if they so desired freedom and proved that they had no hostile intentions against the Ummah they could be freed. It is a remarkably simple system.
The other thing I would say, is that while I agree slavery as condoned by Islam was much more humane than other forms of slavery (the American slave trade of the 1800s for example) some of your arguments show your bias. For example, in some cases you have chosen to compare the theory of Islamic slavery, with the practice of European slavery. You neglected the practice of Islamic slavery, and the theory of Christian, Roman, Greek, and Jewish slavery.
If we are going to talk about theory, many philosophies and laws hundreds of years before the flawless Ummah -- Christian, Greek, Roman, Jewish, etc. -- taught that slaves should be treated humanely, all human beings are created equal, freeing slaves is a good thing, etc. Some philosophers in Greece opposed slavery entirely, for example Alcidamas around 400 B.C.E. said "God has set everyone free. No one is made a slave by nature." You say slavery would have eventually been abolished if people had listened to Muhammad's teachings. Perhaps, but then we have to give even greater credit to people like Alcidamas, because if people had followed his teachings then slavery would have been abolished immediately, one thousand years before the flawless Ummah gave us the wisdom that we should only heap bearable burdens on our slaves.
I am not talking about a theory Sprinkles I am talking about the correct application of Shariah law for well over a century. Regardless tell me where I am wrong. I have been educated in America and I know the justifications the Confederates made for their slaves.
They didn't have any theory of equal work, they worked those men to death. They viewed them as property. Tell me the serfs were ideally supposed to be liberated, by theory and by application it was intended to keep them toiling in lands and giving the majority of their wealth to land barons.
Tell me the theory of the Spanish was to be humane to the Natives when the Conquistadors wrote and clearly saw them as sub human and products of the devil.
Tell me the theory of secular economics which always aimed at maximizing profit by the most efficient use of capital. And tell me it wasn't widely acknowledged that slaves were indeed nothing more than capital, like lumber or cows harnessed to the plow.
You say the regulations of Islam would have phased out slavery eventually, but this too was not the first time law had taken this trajectory. The trajectory of Roman law was also to grant more rights to slaves, make it easier for them to become free, make it harder to become enslaved, and give them greater legal recourse to address grievances against their masters. Emperors and Popes and Kings freed slaves as acts of generosity. Freed slaves rose to high positions. The famous philosopher Epictetus for example (~100 C.E.) was born a slave, he was freed and went on to become friends with the Roman Emperor. A freed slave, Callixtus, became Pope of the Catholic Church. This was around 200 C.E. One would hope that 400 years later, it would still be true that slaves could rise to positions of power.
I am not denying that there were not humane figures in Western society. Of course there is always decency in the darkest of times. But when you can claim, with all seriousness, that the Romans were interested in freeing slaves that the founders and Gods of Rome gave mandates and set aside jurisdiction for the freedom of any slave so that he could insult even the highest of Ceaser. Then and only then will I take your claim seriously.
It is not a matter of eventuality. The moment Muslims were in a position that was no longer threatened by believers held in bondage that was incomparable to the extreme there would be no need for slavery.
Clearly there can be no economic gain from the practice in Islam. Clearly there can be no large plantations when the workers are appealing for their freedom. And clearly society does not encourage the practice when it sets aside funds to free slaves and then places these slaves on accounts of merit and not birth.
But these criticisms I have with your argument don't affect your basic conclusion: I agree with you, the Islamic version of slavery was a huge improvement. But the modern view is an even greater improvement, in fact the modern view is a return to basic ideas that were developed a thousand years before Muhammad. I disagree with you that possessing another human being and taking women captives as war booty should be described as a "flawless" state of affairs.
That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that slavery was set only because it was imposed on Muslims by the hostile tribes of the Quraish the Romans and the Persians. My conclusion is that slavery was never intended to flourish in Islam and all steps were taken to ensure that slaves could not only easily attain their freedom but integrate in their new home.
In contrast the European view of slavery only ended when it was no longer economically viable to do so and even then those who were enslaved were seen for centuries as inferior.
It is not a surprise that many slaves converted to Islam due to their benevolent treatment and they would know of course being that the majority of the Roman and Persian prisoners were slaves captured by their former masters.
