The qur'an

[Autodidact]

In some places, it's as good as prohibiting the drug trade. Would it be a good thing if slavery was outlawed? Sure. Is it legal in any country? Not that I know of. Has that stopped the slave trade? Of course not.

What is your point? What does it have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that there is no point in outlawing slavery, because people will do it anyway? If so, I strongly disagree. If not, then what?

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

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was actually pretty easy, you know. If it wasn't accepted, except by Muslims, why does the trade continue all over the world?

It continues, by criminals, at great risk. Not quite the same as being done by your leader and prophet as an example for all, is it?

In terms of Mauritania:

Mauritania is going against the Qur'an. Need I say more?

In what way? Slavery is legal in the qur'an, and legal in Mauritania. In fact, it's all the Muslim countries that have outlawed slavery that are going against the qur'an.

In terms of Sudan:

It seems militias take it upon themselves to raid civilians. If the slave trade was widespread amongst civilians, you might have a point, but I don't take militant groups like the Taliban, for instance, to represent the ideals of the Qur'an or all Muslims.

Muslim militias attack infidels, conquer them, and take their women into slavery, exactly as directed by the qur'an and modeled by the prophet. The slaves are sold to civilians--regular old middle class devout Muslim Sudanese families, who keep them as servants and concubines. Yes, it's barbaric, and yes, it's Islamic.

You claimed it was propoganda.

It's obviously propaganda; it was written by the victors. The question is, is it true?

If you don't know much about it, you aren't in the position to make that claim. And how does that not make it great?

Discrimination against women is not great. Duh.

I wonder, why do you expect people to follow Islam's finer points in lieu of seeking power for themselves or following their own traditions? Muslims are not magical creatures that always follow the Qur'an. They're human. Atrocities are commited by humans, regardless of race or creed.

My point is that when Muslims behave in these horrible ways, they are following the qur'an. This is what the qur'an and the prophet have told them to do, and what the prophet did. Capture opponent/non-Muslims, enslave them, use them as servants and sex-slaves, and use their children the same way.

Because it would be better to completely outlaw slavery, expect people to free the slaves key to their businesses and livelihoods, and join Islam in waves? Odds are they'd stick with their faiths, since those faiths don't seem too bothered. And those Muslims threatening my livelihood? They're threatening our way of life! They want us to starve and be conquered! Let's get rid of them!

So if I understand you right, it's more important to spread Islam than to do good? Even is Islam is evil? That is, even if Islam spreads slavery across 1/3 of the world, enslaves millions of people, and causes great misery, it's worth it, if it encourages the spread of Islam?

Freeing slaves was encouraged. How is that not an effort?

Because it only led to the increased enslavement of others. Obviously, if you don't own slaves, you can't free them.

If not for the Civil War, he might have been right. I'm also quite sure that man would not have advocated rights for blacks, and would probably have spoken out against those who did. He might even have been one of those fellas who helped hang blacks on trumped-up or nonexistant charges. Had he lived in a tribal society where warfare was the norm, you can be darn well sure he may have considered going to war against people who threatened to free his slaves.

Especially if his religion and his holy book entitled him to keep them.

No, the first step was considering the amazing notion that blacks were human beings. Islam had taken that first step.

Are you trying to credit Islam with figuring that out? Really? btw, remember, in Islam, any non-Muslim can be enslaved, black or white. They had British slaves, if they captured them.

No, Muhammad expected the Jews (and everyone else) not to try to kill him, or at the very least hoped so. When they did, he declared war.

He attacked them. He was seeking to conquer them.

Yes, women are treated worse in Saudi Arabia. Would you like to live in parts of northern India where, while they might not be Muslim, they might treat women even worse than in Saudi Arabia?

If you want to equate Islam with the guarantee that women will be oppressed, I can't agree.

There's certainly a very high correlation, as well as justification.

So he couldn't have fought a single battle in self-defence? The Jews were never ever the aggressors? Other tribes never raided the Muslims?

Muslims were the primary aggressors.

Really, so people can be total nutjobs without reading the Qur'an? Wow.

Duh. Isn't that obvious. What's your point?

If a nutjob converts to Islam, he won't cease being a nutjob; he'll just find new rationalizations. If that nutjob becomes atheist, you can be darn sure he'll find rationalizations then as well.

Remember our subject, the qur'an? The qur'an preserves and enjoins nutjobbery. Hence, devout Muslim nutjobs. The non-nutjobs are the bad Muslims who don't follow the qur'an. Like you, daring to have a Christian friend, in direct violation of the qur'an. Not a nut-job, not Islamic.


Have a look at the quotes I posted earlier in the day.

 

[croak]

croak if you don't want people intellectual annhilating your pathetic excuse for a worldview why don't you just crawl back into whatever cave you came from. after all Mohammed never used a computer and you're supposed to imitate him right?

I haven't seen any intellectual annihilation yet, but if there is merit to the argument, I wouldn't mind it.

For the record, ravens live wherever they want to, whether in a tree, a cave, a cliff... I personally live in a house. Toasty warm.

Who said I'm supposed to imitate Muhammad? Just because I'm taking part in this thread? This thread, in part, is a chance to exercise my intellectual muscles. Hopefully I get something out of it.

You might take a leaf out of the book of the Muslims in this thread and refrain from insulting people you agree with.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you asked for forgiveness I would forgive you and Allah has stated the same.

But the Qur'an says Allah would not forgive:

[47.34] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.
​

So it sounds like in spite of all your imperfections as a human, you are actually more merciful and forgiving than Allah.

 

[TJ73]

If you die in disbelief. Not if you ask for forgives. If you ask for forgiveness you may be forgiven.No?

 

[croak]

What is your point? What does it have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that there is no point in outlawing slavery, because people will do it anyway? If so, I strongly disagree. If not, then what?

I am saying that just saying people should not own slaves at a time when slave ownership was as common and an essential part of society won't likely do anything.

Prohibiting drugs hasn't done much. I would say the way to cut down drug use is to not socially ostricize those who use drugs, to help them get away from using drugs, and to encourage a drug-free life.

I feel actions speak louder than words. But if it comforts you to say that slavery should be outlawed, rather than taking steps to make that call useless, by all means, go ahead.

It continues, by criminals, at great risk. Not quite the same as being done by your leader and prophet as an example for all, is it?

It's not always that risky. Debt bondage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The prophet made an example of freeing slaves. Is that bad?

In what way? Slavery is legal in the qur'an, and legal in Mauritania. In fact, it's all the Muslim countries that have outlawed slavery that are going against the qur'an.

Muslims are not allowed to capture free Muslims and turn them into slaves. That's what is happening in Mauritania. So basically, it's illegal according to the Qur'an and illegal in Mauritania (Slavery in Mauritania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

And I know of no verse or chapter in the Qur'an that states people cannot make up their own laws. Do you?

Muslim militias attack infidels, conquer them, and take their women into slavery, exactly as directed by the qur'an and modeled by the prophet. The slaves are sold to civilians--regular old middle class devout Muslim Sudanese families, who keep them as servants and concubines. Yes, it's barbaric, and yes, it's Islamic.

Except these 'infidels' did not attack and are not attacking Muslims to begin with. Therefore, it is illegal in Islam. So no, it is not Islamic.

It's obviously propaganda; it was written by the victors. The question is, is it true?

So basically you're saying all history is inherently propoganda? Okay. Is it true? Likewise, I haven't studied it, beyond a brief cursory glance, but it seems there is some evidence both ways.

Discrimination against women is not great. Duh.

Obviously. Yet it was a fact of the time. Sometimes, you have to deal with facts rather than dreams.

My point is that when Muslims behave in these horrible ways, they are following the qur'an. This is what the qur'an and the prophet have told them to do, and what the prophet did. Capture opponent/non-Muslims, enslave them, use them as servants and sex-slaves, and use their children the same way.

When Muslims pick-and-choose from the Qur'an, sure, they could end up with those ideas.

So if I understand you right, it's more important to spread Islam than to do good? Even is Islam is evil? That is, even if Islam spreads slavery across 1/3 of the world, enslaves millions of people, and causes great misery, it's worth it, if it encourages the spread of Islam?

The best political ideology would be useless if you didn't strive to spread the idea and get people to agree. You won't get into government if you don't at least appeal somewhat to the people's wants and needs. It's the same with religion. Then, once you have a stable community, things can change.

Islam didn't spread slavery; it already existed. Millions were already enslaved. Also, I was talking about spreading Islam in the context of Muslims being threatened. Once they start going on wars of conquest, that's different. Islam is not being threatened at that stage.

Because it only led to the increased enslavement of others. Obviously, if you don't own slaves, you can't free them.

People would enslave others, with or without Islam. Urging people to free slaves and saying what a blessing it is will persuade some. It might have had a paradoxical effect, I admit.

Especially if his religion and his holy book entitled him to keep them.

To my knowledge, it's not outlawed in any holy text. I admit that I could be wrong.

Are you trying to credit Islam with figuring that out? Really? btw, remember, in Islam, any non-Muslim can be enslaved, black or white. They had British slaves, if they captured them.

Did you really not get my point?

Muhammad's teaching that slaves were to be regarded as human beings with dignity and rights and not just as property, and that freeing slaves was a virtuous thing to do, may have helped to create a culture in which slaves became much more assimilated into the community than they were in the West.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Slavery in Islam

Islam taught that slaves were human beings, whatever their colour. Fair enough?

He attacked them. He was seeking to conquer them.

After his migration (hijra) to Medina from his home-town of Mecca, he established an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina between the major Medinan factions, including the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza that secured equal rights for both Jews and Muslims as long as Jews remained politically supportive.[1] Muhammad later fought battles with these tribes on the basis of violations of the constitution.

Muhammad and Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's certainly a very high correlation, as well as justification.

And looking at other factors, you could find different correlations and justifications.

Muslims were the primary aggressors.

Can you back that up?

Duh. Isn't that obvious. What's your point?

You make it sound like people, just because they are Muslims, must be crazy. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

Remember our subject, the qur'an? The qur'an preserves and enjoins nutjobbery. Hence, devout Muslim nutjobs. The non-nutjobs are the bad Muslims who don't follow the qur'an. Like you, daring to have a Christian friend, in direct violation of the qur'an. Not a nut-job, not Islamic.

Really? I thought the Qur'an said that Muslims could marry 'People of the Book'. So apparently they can get married, but not be friends.


Myself? I dare to have atheist friends.




Have we got anywhere in this discussion? I want to know where we're at, and whether my posts have any merit whatsoever. If not, I might as well back out. No use debating if it's just going back and forth. Then again, I tend to get dragged back into debate. If no one else poses the arguments I consider, then I offer them up.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you die in disbelief. Not if you ask for forgives. If you ask for forgiveness you may be forgiven.No?

What if you ask for forgiveness in the afterlife? The Qur'an says Allah will put them in shackles, throw them in a fire and not forgive them, ever. Is that merciful?

 

[TJ73]

How far is forgiveness supposed to go. How long can you give someone to ask for it? Right up until the very end of their life is not long enough? If we were to be granted paradise after we enter the next life and have the proof we decide was enough, then why should we even have to go through the hardship of living anyway? People say God doesn't exist, He would have made it clear to everyone. So if He did, then we would have no need for faith and we could just skip this part.
I believe in Allah. I have faith. I don't think existence was random and I don't think a Creator would leave us without some instruction. I think that the non-material part of people have everlasting potential, that Allah wanted us to be part of His eternal presence. I think He has a reason that we need to confirm our acknowledgment of His sovereignty before we enter the next paradigm where we can meet the potential he would like for us. I am grateful we have as long as we do.

 

[Bismillah]

What if you ask for forgiveness in the afterlife? The Qur'an says Allah will put them in shackles, throw them in a fire and not forgive them, ever. Is that merciful?

I have asked an influential and very respected scholar on the subject of many non-believers never being exposed to Islam in an unbiased manner. Put simply, how will these people be based if they were never exposed to Islam? The scholar replied that said person would be given the choice of either accepting or rejecting Islam in yawm ad din.

 

[Bismillah]

Seeing as auto manages to continually use red herrings, I am going to repost my thoughts on the matter once more. They are based off of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunnah. If she cannot point out where and how my conclusions based off this evidence is wrong, I can only assume she is trolling and has no knowledge on the matter.

[FONT=&quot]On the question of slavery.

I will start with verses from the Qur'an and the hadith that quite resolutely reject the racists and ignorant viewpoint of the West that was held on for so long and still is in many places.

"O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes for you to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you with God is the most pious.2 Truly, God is All-Knowing, All-Aware".
(49:13)

There is also the hadith of the Prophet

"O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety."

From this standpoint it is clear that it is ridiculous for any man to justify his belief of the inferiority of one human to another, on the basis of his race, with Islamic ruling.

Moving on.

Looking at the concept of slavery in the West, it is beyond sickening to see the implementation of the modern equivalent of factory farming of humans in the past. From the slaves of the Roman Empire to those of the Spanish, it is a testimony to one of the most barbarous treatment of fellow humans in our history.

For example in the mines of Potosi, the "mouth of hell", slaves routinely descended down precarious rotten ladders, prone to breaking and throwing the climbers to their deaths, swim in pools of Mercury, inhales fumes of Mercury, carry heavy loads up and down the steep mountains of Peru, and bouts of starvation that quite effectively decimated the local population and subsequent shipments of slaves and stole the wealth of the biggest silver mine in history.

Literally the legal position of a slave was the absolute right of the master to kill, torture, or by any other means to take advantage of them without any rights on the part of the slave.

This status was not anything particular as it was common from all empires from India to England, the slave's lot was unbearable.

In contrast to these views which were also staunchly held in pre-Islamic Arabia, Islam discarded these notions.

'You are (sprung) the one from the other'

(4:25)

and the sayings of the Prophet

'He who kills his slave, we shall kill him; who mutilates his nose, we shall cut his nose; and who gelds our slave, we shall get him gelded in return.'

'You all are sons of Adam and Adam was created from dust'.

As you see, there is no superiority from one than another save his piety and humanity (as shown by the earlier quotes that I posted)

We can see that the underlying theme in Islam's stance is not of subjugation but of humanity and kinship.

'let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness'
(4:25)

As well as the Hadith:

'They (your servants and slaves) are your brothers. Allah has put them in your care, so feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear. and do not burden them beyond their capacities; but if you burden them (with an unbearable burden), then help them (by sharing their extra burden).'

From this we know that, under Islam, slavery was never meant to encompass an economic motivation. From the example of the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs it is clear that making slaves work to the standards of Western nations would be against Islam. Indeed the owners would have been working and dying with their slaves in Haiti and Dominican Republic had they been following Islamic principles.

The slave is not a machine from which you reap bounty, but a fellow human with which we all share a common ancestry and humanity.

The stigma of slavery was also never seen in Islam. Freed slaves were not demeaned nor were they intended to be seen as anything lower than any free Arab. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example the Prophet joined together Zaid (a freed slave) with Humza (the Prophet’s uncle) and Kharijah (the son of Zaid) with Abu Bakr (one of the most prominent of the Sahaba and the first Caliph after the Prophet’s death). In this case these relations of brotherhood took the same precedence as blood relations and served to place men on equal footing regardless of their backgrounds. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
There was also Zaid’s marriage to Zainab (the Prophet’s cousin). This act is very important because it shows that a former slave can marry and attain the status of the most noble and prestigious of Quraish, even though Zaid was worlds below in social and material status. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Then there is also the fact that former slaves were instituted as commanders of Islamic armies such as Zaid’s generalship and upon his death the appointment of Usama by the Prophet who led Muslims such as Abu Bakr and Umar.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is also the case when Umar could not find an appropriate successor he is known to have said that were Salim, a slave of Abu Hudhaifa, still alive he would have given him the Caliphate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The theme of this is all indicative that a former slave is not barred from the highest of all occupations and status in a Muslim society. Compare this with the abolition of slavery in the United States that resulted in “freedom” for African Americans when they were still regarded as inferior and segregated like contagious animals. Islam provided the correct mindset to dispel these racist assumptions. [/FONT]

 

[Bismillah]

[FONT=&quot]By now we can easily distinguish the factors of slavery in Islam and everywhere else. We can see that slaves were protected, to the extent that a master could not even slap a slave out of cruelty, given their appropriate status as humans, and their positions elevated to that of anyone else and recognizing that through no inherent defect of their own, but from external factors that lead to their enslavement.

From then Islam moved on to free these men and women through either voluntary emancipation (al-itq) or the personal writing and negotiation of their freedom (mukatabah).

Al-itq required that an owner voluntary free his slave, a practice highly encouraged and replicated by the Prophet the companions and the tenants of Islam. The Prophet freed all the slaves he had and his household has freed more than thirty thousand slaves.

Another example would be Abu Bakr (R.A) who spent exorbitant amounts of money to buy slaves from the polytheistic Quraish and then free them.

Furthermore, there was money set aside from the public fund to free these slaves. For example Yahya ib Sa'eed recalls the exchange "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz sent me to collect Zakah from Africa. I did so, then I asked for the poor who should receive it. I did not find any because Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz had made every one rich. I used the money to free some from slavery".

There is another example of the Prophet setting free slaves who would teach ten Muslims how to read or perform any other beneficial service to society. Another precedent set would be that the Qur'an states that freeing slaves would guarantee mercy for the most serious of sins as well as for any sins that one might commit. This alone contributed more to the movement of freeing one's slaves than anything else.

For example, if a man were to accidentally kill a fellow Muslim, reparations in the form of freeing a slave and paying blood money would be sufficient to attain mercy. In this sense because the services of the murdered man are reinstituted with the freed man and the family who is deprived of a livelihood is compensated. From here you can assume something very important, that the status of slavery is seen as something close to death. That freeing a slave is equivalent to bringing a man back from the dead.

History alone judges the vast numbers of slaves freed from this noble idea.

Secondly is the matter of mukatabah which entailed that a master free his slave, at the request of the slave, by way of an agreement of returning a certain amount of money. In this case the master is obligated to neither refuse this request, nor delay his emancipation. If these terms are broken, the slave is entitled to appeal the issue to a court to address his issue of liberty. The moment the slave presented his plea his master could neither turn down the offer nor should he fear any repercussions because the Islamic government guaranteed that he would work for his master for freedom or if they could not be reconciled to work for anyone else, for payment, until the time that he could win back his freedom.

Please look to the European recognition of indentured servants (with the exception that indentured servants were often worked to death something that Islamic law abhors), a principle applied in Europe hundreds of years after Islam recognized the need, practicality, and humanity in such a law. However the underlying difference being that Islam, again, put funds out to aid these slaves in their workings for freedom. This is pointed out by the verse from the Qur'an that describes zakat as deployed as:

'Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives'
(9:60)

Even when it was of no interest and certainly no material gain of the State did Muslims so vigorously put money aside for these causes in the time of enlightenment![/FONT][FONT=&quot] This of course hundreds of years before the cherished Enlightenment that Auto drones on and on about that were motivated solely for Political and Economic reasons, if these are the humanistic causes for which Europeans celebrate then we must reflect the moral distance between the two societies of Europe and the flawless Ummah of our Prophet. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So now that I have cited how the slave’s lot was tremendously increased from the standards of the West, as well as how slavery was undoubtedly led to be abolished if the two rules of emancipation within Islam were adhered, comes the point of from where and why were slaves kept in the first place.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If looking at the causes of slavery you look to the Romans, for example, you will see that slaves were in positions of abject pity used to allow the Roman public to continue their public indulgences and luxuries. In the perspective of the New World they were treated as a mere chattle to harvest resources and crops from the land. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
From the standards set by the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs, none of these factors of material gain ever presented themselves as motivation for the influx of greater number of slaves. The fact of the matter is that during the time of the Prophet the Ummah was fragile and always in constant danger from belligerent tribes. The Muslims who fell under the hands of these enemies were routinely killed and their women gang raped and then murdered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For all practical purposes Islam is not a purely pacifistic religion. It is one established on common sense that will allow its people to flourish in this world as well as the next. Therefore it would have been foolish to set free prisoners of war while the enemies routinely captured and enslaved those Muslims who fell under their hands. For the sake of leverage and the fates of those Muslims who were in the hands of the enemy of the Ummah, slavery was a necessary condition imposed by the belligerents. But though this condition was a necessity the fact of the matter is that they were incomparable to the extreme, as was pointed out earlier. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In fact it is recognized that slavery is not meant for as an eternal condition and a byproduct of strategic warfare. The only verse dealing with the captured belligerents which states
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘afterwards, (release them, a must), either by way of grace or by (accepting) ransom. (That is the law,) until war lays down its weapons (and it is over).’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](47:4)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As to those Muslims, who later on, conducted wars and encouraged the traffic of slavery for no reason they are outside the fold of Islam. They had no justification from our laws and were motivated by their own expansionist ideals and want for luxury. Indeed their heretical actions are evident as they took strides to limit the contact of foreign people to Islam and imprisoned converts still, in the name of profit, so as to limit the number of new Muslims of whom they were legally obliged not to enslave. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(I would like to give credit to both Mr Afzalur Rahman and Dr. Qutb for their extensive collection of hadith and verses relating to the subject and for enormously shaping my thinking and providing the structure for my argument)
[/FONT]

 

[Vendetta]

I think we are incorporating our modern view of slavery against slavery back then. Remember, the zeitgeist of the time was different than now. Just because Stabs enslaved and sold Africans doesn't discount Islam, it was the time. However the complexity here is if slavery was right in God's mind why is it wrong in ours today?

 

[TJ73]

I think we are incorporating our modern view of slavery against slavery back then. Remember, the zeitgeist of the time was different than now. Just because Stabs enslaved and sold Africans doesn't discount Islam, it was the time. However the complexity here is if slavery was right in God's mind why is it wrong in ours today?

When you put it in that context and after the post Abibi made you could argue slavery , in the Islamic context, would probably be favored by most people held captive right now. I would certainly prefer to have some rights and be recognized as a human being rather than being subjected to torture, and having horrible things screamed at me.

 

[A-ManESL]

I read this piece by Rumi today on the Quran and thought it might be interesting to share here:

The Koran is like a bride who does not show her face to you even when you draw aside the veil. The fact that you have examined her, and yet have not attained happiness or mystical unveiling, is a sign that your act of trying to remove her veil has itself repulsed her, so that she appears to you as ugly. She says, “I am no beautiful bride.” The Koran shows itself in whatever form it pleases. But if you do not try drawing aside the veil, and seek only the Koran’s good pleasure, watering its fields, attending it from afar, working upon whatever pleases it best, then it will show you its face without any effort at drawing aside the veil.-Discourses of Rumi

 

[SLAMH]

While you're at it, can you talk about the morality of capturing women and keeping them as your concubines, that is, your sex slaves? We're all very interested in that approach to ethics, as set forth in the divine, the perfect qur'an.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yes, it is allowed. But it has some rules, first the relationship has to be monogamy. If she has a child, then her master isn't allowed to buy or sell her and the child is not considered to be a slave and the same goes for his mother. Also, the marriage of the slaves is allowed, so if the girl slave is married then her master is not allowed to have a relationship with her. One thing to note, if the master hits his slave harshly, then has to freed him immediately.

 

[England my lionheart]

I read this piece by Rumi today on the Quran and thought it might be interesting to share here:

Maybe it only shows its face to Arab speakers,the face in English isn't very attractive.

 

[Looncall]

[FONT=&quot]By now we can easily distinguish the factors of slavery in Islam and everywhere else. We can see that slaves were protected, to the extent that a master could not even slap a slave out of cruelty, given their appropriate status as humans, and their positions elevated to that of anyone else and recognizing that through no inherent defect of their own, but from external factors that lead to their enslavement.

From then Islam moved on to free these men and women through either voluntary emancipation (al-itq) or the personal writing and negotiation of their freedom (mukatabah).

Al-itq required that an owner voluntary free his slave, a practice highly encouraged and replicated by the Prophet the companions and the tenants of Islam. The Prophet freed all the slaves he had and his household has freed more than thirty thousand slaves.

Another example would be Abu Bakr (R.A) who spent exorbitant amounts of money to buy slaves from the polytheistic Quraish and then free them.

Furthermore, there was money set aside from the public fund to free these slaves. For example Yahya ib Sa'eed recalls the exchange "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz sent me to collect Zakah from Africa. I did so, then I asked for the poor who should receive it. I did not find any because Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz had made every one rich. I used the money to free some from slavery".

There is another example of the Prophet setting free slaves who would teach ten Muslims how to read or perform any other beneficial service to society. Another precedent set would be that the Qur'an states that freeing slaves would guarantee mercy for the most serious of sins as well as for any sins that one might commit. This alone contributed more to the movement of freeing one's slaves than anything else.

For example, if a man were to accidentally kill a fellow Muslim, reparations in the form of freeing a slave and paying blood money would be sufficient to attain mercy. In this sense because the services of the murdered man are reinstituted with the freed man and the family who is deprived of a livelihood is compensated. From here you can assume something very important, that the status of slavery is seen as something close to death. That freeing a slave is equivalent to bringing a man back from the dead.

History alone judges the vast numbers of slaves freed from this noble idea.

Secondly is the matter of mukatabah which entailed that a master free his slave, at the request of the slave, by way of an agreement of returning a certain amount of money. In this case the master is obligated to neither refuse this request, nor delay his emancipation. If these terms are broken, the slave is entitled to appeal the issue to a court to address his issue of liberty. The moment the slave presented his plea his master could neither turn down the offer nor should he fear any repercussions because the Islamic government guaranteed that he would work for his master for freedom or if they could not be reconciled to work for anyone else, for payment, until the time that he could win back his freedom.

Please look to the European recognition of indentured servants (with the exception that indentured servants were often worked to death something that Islamic law abhors), a principle applied in Europe hundreds of years after Islam recognized the need, practicality, and humanity in such a law. However the underlying difference being that Islam, again, put funds out to aid these slaves in their workings for freedom. This is pointed out by the verse from the Qur'an that describes zakat as deployed as:

'Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives'
(9:60)

Even when it was of no interest and certainly no material gain of the State did Muslims so vigorously put money aside for these causes in the time of enlightenment![/FONT][FONT=&quot] This of course hundreds of years before the cherished Enlightenment that Auto drones on and on about that were motivated solely for Political and Economic reasons, if these are the humanistic causes for which Europeans celebrate then we must reflect the moral distance between the two societies of Europe and the flawless Ummah of our Prophet. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So now that I have cited how the slave’s lot was tremendously increased from the standards of the West, as well as how slavery was undoubtedly led to be abolished if the two rules of emancipation within Islam were adhered, comes the point of from where and why were slaves kept in the first place.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If looking at the causes of slavery you look to the Romans, for example, you will see that slaves were in positions of abject pity used to allow the Roman public to continue their public indulgences and luxuries. In the perspective of the New World they were treated as a mere chattle to harvest resources and crops from the land. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
From the standards set by the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs, none of these factors of material gain ever presented themselves as motivation for the influx of greater number of slaves. The fact of the matter is that during the time of the Prophet the Ummah was fragile and always in constant danger from belligerent tribes. The Muslims who fell under the hands of these enemies were routinely killed and their women gang raped and then murdered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For all practical purposes Islam is not a purely pacifistic religion. It is one established on common sense that will allow its people to flourish in this world as well as the next. Therefore it would have been foolish to set free prisoners of war while the enemies routinely captured and enslaved those Muslims who fell under their hands. For the sake of leverage and the fates of those Muslims who were in the hands of the enemy of the Ummah, slavery was a necessary condition imposed by the belligerents. But though this condition was a necessity the fact of the matter is that they were incomparable to the extreme, as was pointed out earlier. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In fact it is recognized that slavery is not meant for as an eternal condition and a byproduct of strategic warfare. The only verse dealing with the captured belligerents which states
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘afterwards, (release them, a must), either by way of grace or by (accepting) ransom. (That is the law,) until war lays down its weapons (and it is over).’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](47:4)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As to those Muslims, who later on, conducted wars and encouraged the traffic of slavery for no reason they are outside the fold of Islam. They had no justification from our laws and were motivated by their own expansionist ideals and want for luxury. Indeed their heretical actions are evident as they took strides to limit the contact of foreign people to Islam and imprisoned converts still, in the name of profit, so as to limit the number of new Muslims of whom they were legally obliged not to enslave. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(I would like to give credit to both Mr Afzalur Rahman and Dr. Qutb for their extensive collection of hadith and verses relating to the subject and for enormously shaping my thinking and providing the structure for my argument)
[/FONT]

How much is all this good-sounding stuff worth when one considers that the actual behaviour of muslims did not resemble it in any way?

Remember the Barbary corsairs and their galley slaves and concubines, and the immense traffic in African slaves.

 

[SLAMH]

Do I think there's a connection between Islam and Muslims? Uh, yeah.
Quote:
A Muslim (مسل&#1605, , is an adherent of the religion of Islam

This doesn't prove me wrong.

O.K., so we're clear now. In Islam, and according to the qur'an, slaves may be captured in war or born to people captured in war. Once captured, they may be bought and sold, and so may their descendants. Are we in agreement on that?

Yes, but you keep ignoring the restrictions and limitations.

O.K. now, in your view, is that right or wrong? Is it right or wrong to capture someone in war, enslave them and their descendants, buy and sell them like property?

Islam didn't create slavery, it came and found it there. It states rules by which slavery can be eradicated.

When doing so, they may kill their opponents, or capture them into slavery, as they prefer. They usually preferred to kill all or most of the men, and take the women captive as slaves and concubines. What is confusing about any of this?

No they don't do. You will only be killed in the battle, or if you did kill innocent people like what Saladin did he only killed who found to be guilty by this.

You keep making ad hominem pronouncements like this. It is incumbent on you to actually demonstrate this, by showing how I am wrong, and providing sources to support your claims. Y'know, like I do. It takes time and effort, but otherwise you just have a swearing match of no interest to anyone.

I have spoken the truth.

Yes, slaves who somehow manage to scrape enough money together are allowed to buy their own freedom. In your view, is this a moral system?

If it gives the chance for slaves to gain their freedom, what makes it immoral.

And, when I said that your knowledge of the Islamic history is really poor, I was right. It is apparent that you don't know that most of the Islamic scholars were slaves, at one time slaves ruled the Islamic state. Do you know why, because there is law that allows them to gain their freedom, it doesn't recognize them as being slaves by nature, but it does view it as a condition that has to do with circumstances.

where did you learn you Muslim history, Saudi Arabia? Did you forget what came before that? Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa

and why did he do that ?

No, I don't have to justify anything immoral, because I am not stuck with a barbaric, primitive holy text.

No comments.

SLAMH's translation?

Read TJ73's post, # 371.

 

[Bismillah]

Maybe it only shows its face to Arab speakers,the face in English isn't very attractive.

Then you must find a good translation that speaks to you. Maududi always speaks to me

How much is all this good-sounding stuff worth when one considers that the actual behaviour of muslims did not resemble it in any way?

Remember the Barbary corsairs and their galley slaves and concubines, and the immense traffic in African slaves.

Yes of course I remember and I remember how Islam explicitly outlawed what they did. I follow its teachings and those teachings tell me to reject slavery. So what of the people who didn't implement what Islam tells us to do? I hold my peace knowing that my religion is at odds with their actions and they will be held responsible.

Yes, it is allowed. But it has some rules, first the relationship has to be monogamy. If she has a child, then her master isn't allowed to buy or sell her and the child is not considered to be a slave and the same goes for his mother. Also, the marriage of the slaves is allowed, so if the girl slave is married then her master is not allowed to have a relationship with her.

Exactly, the moment a man impregnates his slave both the child and mother are freed. Furthermore it is hadith to treat your female slaves as you treat your wives with honor respect and kindness.

Yes, slaves who somehow manage to scrape enough money together are allowed to buy their own freedom. In your view, is this a moral system?

What do you mean somehow scraped enough money together? They were paid for their work, it is not working twelve hours and then another eight for extra money. And you seem to forget that the bait al mal also frequently paid the maktabah of slaves.

slaves may be captured in war or born to people captured in war.

I cannot understand why such a simple concept eludes your grasp. The fact is that slavery was practiced by the polytheists. This is undeniable. It is also undeniable that these men took Muslims captive and put them to the sword and gang raped their women. That is a fact.

The fact is that the Muslims won the majority of their battles and had many prisoners as a a consequence of their victory. And it would have been impossible to free them. If they were not held as leverage, the Ummah would not exist today.

So yes, prisoners of war were and are allowed. If for the practical reasons of warfare. Because I dare you to find another solution to this fact.

When doing so, they may kill their opponents, or capture them into slavery, as they prefer. They usually preferred to kill all or most of the men, and take the women captive as slaves and concubines. What is confusing about any of this?

That is false and is against the rules of warfare dictated in Islam. Furthermore, you want to compare Islam and the West. Tell me how many Muslims are left in Spain? Tell me how many Muslims were allowed to live in Europe? Or how about when the Crusaders killed every man women and child in Jerusalem.

Compare that with Saladin's own actions, with the fact that many non-Muslims flourished in Islamic society, and the fact that the Orthadox Church's seat is still in Istanbul.

 

[England my lionheart]

Quote Abibi:
Then you must find a good translation that speaks to you. Maududi always speaks to me

I've tried different translations,i still cannot see anything other than an old book with an old world view,much like the Bible

Quote Abibi:
Exactly, the moment a man impregnates his slave both the child and mother are freed. Furthermore it is hadith to treat your female slaves as you treat your wives with honor respect and kindness

Thats good then,guess its a good idea to stay stocked up with female Slaves

 

[A-ManESL]

Maybe it only shows its face to Arab speakers,the face in English isn't very attractive.

There are millions of non-Arab speakers (including myself) who with disagree with you there. The question is not of the language EML, but of the attitude with which you approach the Quran. The Quran presents itself in the form corresponding to your attitude.