The qur'an

[Autodidact]

[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.

Of course, if you don't own them, you can't free them, can you? Meanwhile, they could just go out and buy some new ones, so greater and greater numbers of people became enslaved.

Muslims also sold slaves throughout the world, including to those very Christians whose practices you are condemning.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

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

While millions more became enslaved at the same time.

[FONT="]
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. [/FONT]

You realize the slaves have been able to purchase their own freedom under almost every slave system ever instituted, right? We have a word for this. We call it "ransom." It's a crime.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]
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]

No you haven't! There's nothing in the Muslim system that did not exist in either the Jewish or Christian system. In fact, the Jewish system is kinder to slaves, if anything.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT="]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]

Whereas in Islamic Arabia, the society had not progressed to that level, so they were used as domestic servants and sex slaves. And that is better how exactly?

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.

Can you provide a single non-Muslim propaganda that says, for example, that the poor Iranians were raping and murdering innocent Muslims, who fought back out of self-defense, thereby conquering Persia? Or India? Or the many other more civilized cultures that were minding their own business when Muslim hordes invaded, conquered and enslaved them?

What a pile of bull! "Oh, those poor Muslims couldn't help becoming the world's leading slave-traders, capturing and enslaving millions of people for centuries, and selling them from one end of the world to the other! It was self-defense!" Does that make a shred of sense to you?[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

For all practical purposes Islam is not a purely pacifistic religion

If by "all practical purposes" you mean "other than being the exact opposite[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

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.

So in your mind, pacifists have prisoners or war?

[FONT="] 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[/FONT]

The belligerents were the Muslims. They were invading and conquering huge swaths of the planet.

[FONT="]. 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="]In fact it is recognized that slavery is not meant for as an eternal condition and a byproduct of strategic warfare.[/FONT]

Where does it say that in the qur'an, pray tell? [FONT=&quot] 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]

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

outside the fold in the sense of "doing exactly what the qur'an says?"

[FONT="]. 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]

I notice how you cannot cite a single verse to support this bizarre view, entirely divorced from reality, while I have provided verse after verse that says the exact opposite.
[FONT=&quot]
[qutoe](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][/quote] That explains it. When you read loons, you spew lunacy.

Abibi, this has to be the biggest steaming pile of baloney I have ever encountered on the internet. I'm going to be really nice and call it Taqeeyah, because otherwise it's just plain making stuff up.

In your world, a qur'an that commands it's readers to make war, capture women into sexual slavery while killing their husbands, and sell their children into lifelong slavery, a book that has served as the holy text for the biggest slave trade in the history of the world, is a pacifist guide to liberation.

Let me ask you this, Abibi: slavery: right, or wrong?

 

[Autodidact]

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?

I thought the qur'an was supposed to contain God's guidance for humanity for all time, no?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

So for you, if you capture a woman during war, you get to keep her as your sex slave for the rest of her life, and that's moral, right?

Where are you getting monogamy from in Islam?

 

[Autodidact]

This doesn't prove me wrong.

O.K. I think you've gone off the rails. You said there was no relationship between Islam and Muslims. None. Zip. Nothing. It turns out that a Muslim is an adherent of Islam. And you're still trying to maintain that there is NO RELATIONSHIP! O.K., clearly there's no point in talking to you, as you are no longer making a shred of sense.

Yes, but you keep ignoring the restrictions and limitations.

Such as they are.

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

That's just a lie. What it does is permit slavery. Period. Nowhere, not one word, anywhere, says that slavery will be eradicated. Slavery was outlawed by secular laws, not Islamic ones.

It's a simple question that for some reason, probably your religion, you find difficult to answer:

Is slavery right or wrong?

I don't mind debating, but when I have to ask people to answer my polite, reasonable, relevant questions over and over, it gets tedious. It's rude, and it's so obvious to all of us that you feel that you can't defend your answer.

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.

This is tedious. I already quoted sura and hadith to demonstrate every point that I made. If you're going to ignore my research, what's the point? Why did you ask for it?

Think what a disadvantage I'm at. I know almost nothing about the qur'an. You should know huge chunks of it by heart. Please take pity on how much research I have to do, how much I have to learn, to support my assertions. I don't appreciate you ignoring it.

I have spoken the truth.

I've never met you. You're completely anonymous to me. I have no more faith in your assertions than you have in mine. If you expect me to accept them, you have to demonstrate that they are true--just like I do.

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

So you can't find anything immoral about slavery?

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.

So that makes slavery right?

Is that your point? Slavery according to the qur'an is moral?

 

[Autodidact]

Since when did slaves have the option to sue for freedom? I would think that goes against the very denotation of the word slave?

No. Slavery is slavery. If you're a slave, you don't control your own freedom. That's what makes it slavery.

 

[Autodidact]

If he is a possession then why can he claim the rights of a man who is not a possession? Why can he insult the Caliph, the leader of those men who are not possession? Why can he demand his freedom and why can he demand to marry? Please explain to me how these concepts gell together.

I am not calling them free men, they obviously were not free. Nor were they slaves because by definition a slave cannot demand his freedom correct?

Their status is more akin to PoWs but even then, that term does not gell with their rights nor their status. And kai you are wrong, it caught on with the Prophet, the rightly guided Caliphs, and was only abandoned by the gradual corruption and rejection of Shariah.

You're trying to argue that the qur'an does NOT permit slavery? Seriously?

Sorry, a sex slave is not a POW. If you can't see the difference, it may because you're Muslim.

 

[SLAMH]

Do you suffer from lack of reading capabilities?
I have said that all these scholars and students DO NOT take the Qur'an at face value. and have listed ALL the practical reasons to study the Qur'an outside the sphere of religious belief.
No one is saying that the Qur'an or any other text is divinely inspired. what is evident is, that this text is now instrumental in geopolitical realities, therefore many researchers find if essential to read it or study it. NOT that they BELIEVE in it.

In addition to this, I found Islam to be the most practical religion. It not only a spiritual text, but it goes even beyond spirituality and acquires followers to behave in certain way. Muslims are always on duty, even if they are studying science they are worshiping God. If they sleep, they are worshiping God. I think and I believe it is a worth to put into consideration, even if you don't believe in it.

 

[A-ManESL]

Muslims are always on duty, even if they are studying science they are worshiping God. If they sleep, they are worshiping God. I think and I believe it is a worth to put into consideration, even if you don't believe in it.

This is the attitude that many Westerners dont understand about Islam. Everything is united in the Islamic way, the spiritual and the worldly. There is no real difference between the two, except for outward actions.

 

[SLAMH]

So for you, if you capture a woman during war, you get to keep her as your sex slave for the rest of her life, and that's moral, right?

Autodidact, with all respect though, but I think the way you derive conclusions out of things is wrong and inaccurate. Do see the part with red, tell me how did you reach to such conclusion out of my comment.

Where are you getting monogamy from in Islam?

Clarify more.

 

[SLAMH]

This is the attitude that many Westerners dont understand about Islam. Everything is united in the Islamic way, the spiritual and the worldly. There is no real difference between the two, except for outward actions.

I guess this due to the impacts of church, see most western views religion to be contradicting and hindering to the process of science. For me, I like science and I don't think that me being a Muslim will ever hinder my desire to be a scientist.

 

[Bismillah]

[FONT=&quot]First, I don't see where you get a condemnation of racism from that. Second, we're not talking about racism; we're talking about slavery. Muslim slavery is imposed based on religon, rather than race. How is that better?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Wrong on both accounts. My conclusion stems from this ayat and the Hadith I post later on, but it is quite apparent that Islam resoundly rejects the idea that any man is superior to the other based on inherent traits.

Secondly, if you cannot see how racism deals with slavery and how the fact that Islam rejects that PoV is relevant I don't know what to say. Maybe you need to educate yourself a bit more about the colonialism from the secular West.

[/FONT]

But a Muslim is better than a Jew, a Christian or a polytheist.

Blanket statements are so amusing, support your idea because there is no social caste in Islam. [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion of slavery.
[FONT=&quot]
Moving on.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] It is profoundly puzzling how someone cannot see the relevance in this, merely it points your own bias.

[/FONT]

As were the conditions of Muslim slaves.

Wrong. The conditions of people placed in bondage during the Rashidun Caliphate was incomparable to the brutal treatment so prevalent everywhere else.

Yes, slavery is horrible, isn't it. I wonder why your God doesn't prohibit it.

It's a wonder you don't see the mines of Potosi in Islamic history. Even with the total corruption of Shariah, Muslims retained a sense of decency the Europeans were clearly devoid of. Your cherished ideals of capitalism do that to people.

Are you an expert on Ancient World History, or where you going to present a shred of authority to back up your slander of every culture in the world except yours?
[FONT=&quot]
In contrast to these views which were also staunchly held in pre-Islamic Arabia, Islam discarded these notions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Empires at the time such as Rome and the Indian societies knows this to be true. Same with the Chinese and the Persian empires, the slave was held in utter disregard.

[/FONT]

But on the other hand, if we do it to you, it's just dandy. Muhammad didn't like people damaging his property, that's clear.

Are your reading comprehension skills faulty? [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]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."

This quote is taking in the context of a man doing such things on his own "slave". Clearly anyone with a shred of neutrality can understand that the idea of slaves as subhuman and deserving of such barbaric treatment was rejected.

You do know that the New Testament embodies total equality for all in Christ, including slaves, right?

I also know the many religious arguments made in America for the establishment of slavery. Or before that in the New World. And before that the pagans. Do you?[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

I'm sorry, but if you're goal is to capture me and put me in sexual slavery to some man I never met, that's subjugation, not kinship.

Capture you and put you in sexual slavery? Blanket statements again! The slaves mentioned were all the result of war and hostile actions as per the treacher and broken treaties signed by various tribes.

My goal is to protect my family, and to hold you in bondage until either my brother who was tortured and killed in captivity and my sister who was gang raped are released or until you show your own good faith and intentions to be a productive member of society.

People were held for good reason.

Yup. A Muslim man can have any of his female slaves he likes. And that's your barbaric notion of humanism. Sickening.

Nope, he must respect the wishes of his maidens such as their decision to marry. He must ask her people in good faith and if the women is impregnated the child and she are freed automatically. [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Christianity beat you to it with all this.

Irrelevant and I have yet to see this quote [FONT=&quot]'[/FONT]but if you burden them (with an unbearable burden), then help them (by sharing their extra burden).'

What on earth motivation is it supposed to encompass then?

Bondage was the direct result of the fact that Muslims were held and tortured by hostile tribes. There never was an economic principle to perpetuate slavery.

Where can we find these principles?

You just quoted them [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Even better. It's no shame to be a slave. Islamic slavery just gets more and more...immoral.

The idea that a former slave had no social restrictions attached to him is immoral. Your warped thinking is too amusing.

I hope you're not under the impression that any of that was innovative.

I would think that the idea of a man appointed on the basis of merit is innovate, of course merit based appointments are immoral too now aren't they
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

So actually you have nothing to say about slavery? Just racism? Interesting you should raise it, although I don't see why.

Uh, o.k., qur'anic discrimination is on the basis of religion rather than race. How is that better?

Again another blanket statement, bondage was not ascribed to religion. It was a result of warfare.

[FONT=&quot]Of course, if you don't own them, you can't free them, can you? Meanwhile, they could just go out and buy some new ones, so greater and greater numbers of people became enslaved.

Muslims also sold slaves throughout the world, including to those very Christians whose practices you are condemning.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] By now I know when my ******** detector should start ringing. When discussing scripture they suddenly shift their viewpoint to a historical one, that is a major indicator.

As are the multitudes of unsupported assertions while the fact is that there was no "slave market" during the Rashidun caliphate. There were no "slave raiding parties". It was an external condition imposed on them by the hostile tribes of the Quraish.

Your arguments are hollow.

[/FONT]

While millions more became enslaved at the same time.

There it is again. We are talking about the idea and implementation of Shariah. It is obvious that this system of government disintegrated with the death of Ali.

You realize the slaves have been able to purchase their own freedom under almost every slave system ever instituted, right? We have a word for this. We call it "ransom." It's a crime.

Show me. And please highlight your use of the word ransom. It directly is an admission of the fact that these were people who were actively engaged in warfare and imposed this system of bondage upon the Caliphate. [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

No you haven't! There's nothing in the Muslim system that did not exist in either the Jewish or Christian system. In fact, the Jewish system is kinder to slaves, if anything.

Al-itq was the de facto means [FONT=&quot]to free people and al-itq organized a means if the first failed. So show me how these two principles do not explicitly outlaw slavery, make an actual argument [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Whereas in Islamic Arabia, the society had not progressed to that level, so they were used as domestic servants and sex slaves. And that is better how exactly?

Wrong the concept of things such as Harems are not Islamic. You keep muddling the lines between the Rashidun and their successors.

Can you provide a single non-Muslim propaganda that says, for example, that the poor Iranians were raping and murdering innocent Muslims, who fought back out of self-defense, thereby conquering Persia? Or India? Or the many other more civilized cultures that were minding their own business when Muslim hordes invaded, conquered and enslaved them?

There are many historical examples of the treachery of the Quraish. And we are talking about the rightly guided Caliphs sorry, try to pay attention.

If by "all practical purposes" you mean "other than being the exact opposite[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Blatantly wrong but not the subject of the debate.

[/FONT]

So in your mind, pacifists have prisoners or war?

No people not short sighted enough to look for their own survival.

The belligerents were the Muslims. They were invading and conquering huge swaths of the planet.

Wrong, the Prophet made many pacts with Jewish tribes that were honored and in fact in which they fought together.

 

[Bismillah]

outside the fold in the sense of "doing exactly what the qur'an says?"

I am surprised you cannot understand the simplest of verses that references wartime and commands the freedom of those prisoners at the conclusion of the war. Economic means and exploitation are outside the fold of Islam.

In your world, a qur'an that commands it's readers to make war, capture women into sexual slavery while killing their husbands, and sell their children into lifelong slavery, a book that has served as the holy text for the biggest slave trade in the history of the world, is a pacifist guide to liberation.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Tell me where.

Let me ask you this, Abibi: slavery: right, or wrong?

Irrelevant, the concept of Western slavery is not applicable.

No. Slavery is slavery. If you're a slave, you don't control your own freedom. That's what makes it slavery.

Precisely why you are wrong. Because these people could control their own freedom.

Sorry, a sex slave is not a POW. If you can't see the difference, it may because you're Muslim.

A sex slave would indicate that a person has unilateral authority over a person. False. A sex slave would indicate that he owned her and could take her without any permission. False.

If you can't see the difference it's your agenda getting in the way.

 

[SLAMH]

O.K. I think you've gone off the rails. You said there was no relationship between Islam and Muslims. None. Zip. Nothing. It turns out that a Muslim is an adherent of Islam. And you're still trying to maintain that there is NO RELATIONSHIP! O.K., clearly there's no point in talking to you, as you are no longer making a shred of sense.

What it would cost you if you ask me why ?, however
you used this as to prove that there is connection between Islam and Muslim's action.

Muslim is an adherent of Islam

This doesn't prove me wrong because this what suppose to be, it is a theoretical principle which may or may not clash with reality. It is just like when you say Muslims aren't supposed to have sex before marriage, but in reality you can see many of them doing exactly the opposite.

Can you see my point now ?

That's just a lie. What it does is permit slavery. Period. Nowhere, not one word, anywhere, says that slavery will be eradicated. Slavery was outlawed by secular laws, not Islamic ones.

The thing I like about the secular systems that it keeps doing the same thing, but with a different envelop. Just look at how pensioners of war are treated to understand what I mean.

It's a simple question that for some reason, probably your religion, you find difficult to answer:

Is slavery right or wrong?

I don't mind debating, but when I have to ask people to answer my polite, reasonable, relevant questions over and over, it gets tedious. It's rude, and it's so obvious to all of us that you feel that you can't defend your answer.

Fine you want a simple answer, it is Wrong.

This is tedious. I already quoted sura and hadith to demonstrate every point that I made. If you're going to ignore my research, what's the point? Why did you ask for it?

No, you use the story of Banu Qurayza to prove that they choose to kill or it is all about what they prefer, and as I did I showed what was the reason for doing this with Banu Qurayza. It is all about the situation, and not about what one prefers.

Think what a disadvantage I'm at. I know almost nothing about the qur'an. You should know huge chunks of it by heart. Please take pity on how much research I have to do, how much I have to learn, to support my assertions. I don't appreciate you ignoring it.

Ok ,fine. Somehow, seems like I was wrong.

I've never met you. You're completely anonymous to me. I have no more faith in your assertions than you have in mine. If you expect me to accept them, you have to demonstrate that they are true--just like I do.

I don't think I need to do so, since you already have proven them.

So you can't find anything immoral about slavery?

I think you were talking about the system which means to Islam, I don't think you were talking about slavery itself.

check your comment again,

is this a moral system?

So that makes slavery right?

Is that your point? Slavery according to the qur'an is moral?

No, no....

My point is that their condition didn't hinder them, most of them were leaders and scholars and were considered to be very well respected people during that time.

 

[Caladan]

In addition to this, I found Islam to be the most practical religion. It not only a spiritual text, but it goes even beyond spirituality and acquires followers to behave in certain way. Muslims are always on duty, even if they are studying science they are worshiping God. If they sleep, they are worshiping God. I think and I believe it is a worth to put into consideration, even if you don't believe in it.

Yes, that's very nice. carry on soldier.

 

[England my lionheart]

You seem to think that the holy Quran was revealed today, let me correct you my friend. The quran was revealed over 1400 years ago and it is the Quran itself that puts out this challenge to those who reject it, so they can try with all thier might to prove that it is a false book, but they cannot.

Thats for you to prove its true,present some evidence and we'll go from there ok.

The quran has never been proven wrong, these are not my words but the words of scientists, scholors, professors and so on.

This part is a big mistake by some Muslims,the Qur'an is a book of faith not scientific facts

The point i would like to make is that not many people know the true teachings of the quran, let me ask you, have you read the quran? if you have not then how are you in a position to judge weather it is true of false? even if you believe it to be false id still recommend that you read it.

People read the Qur'an for different reasons,i read it because it gives an insight into the culture of the Desert Tribes of the Arabs and an attempt to understand the followers of its religion today,its not the greatest book i've ever read,its not easy to read and in English its beauty we are told is lost because it was revealed in Arabic.

"So We have revealed an Arabic Quran to you, in order that you may warn the capital city and all who live nearby..." (Qur'an 42:7)
"We have made the Qur'an easy in your language so that they may take heed it." (Qur'an 44:58)
"If We had made it a foreign Quran, they would have said, ‘If only its verses were clear! What? Foreign speech to an Arab?’ Say, ‘It is guidance and healing for those who have faith, but the ears of the disbelievers are heavy, they are blind to it, it is as if they are being called from a distant place.’ (Qur'an 41:44)

There are a couple of interesting things here "we have" is one of them,the other is it was revealed in one of the most difficult languages there is which leads me to think it was never a universal message

 

[Starsoul]

Honestly, I tried reading parts of the Quran and just found it mundane and un-inspirational. After growing up with the large volume of material and dense philosophy of the Vedic scriptures, it's hard to pick up something like the Quran or Bible and get anything out of it. They seem like children books in comparison.

To you maybe. But It is the beauty of the Quran that it appeals equally as much to a highly intellectual person as it does to a village uneducated person. You will find many distinguished Phds and highly educated Muslims and you will see a dessert Bedouin equally inspired with it with however limited understanding he has of it.

That is called Absolute philosophy, catering to both ends of the intellectual span, with its simple ramifications applying and encompassing All aspects, not just one segment of the privileged educated.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact, with all respect though, but I think the way you derive conclusions out of things is wrong and inaccurate. Do see the part with red, tell me how did you reach to such conclusion out of my comment.

You don't understand how the qur'an allows Muslims to capture a woman in war, kill her husband, and keep her as their sex slave for the rest of her life? I really have to cite the sura again? Are you denying that this is the case?!?

Clarify more.

You said that monogamy was required. Muslim men are not required to be monogamous. So I'm not following you.

 

[Autodidact]

I guess this due to the impacts of church, see most western views religion to be contradicting and hindering to the process of science. For me, I like science and I don't think that me being a Muslim will ever hinder my desire to be a scientist.

Yet, oddly, I have encountered the most anti-scientific views I've ever experienced among Muslims right here at RF. Worse even than fundamentalist Christians. I blame that ya-ya, Harun Yahya.

 

[Autodidact]

[FONT=&quot] Wrong on both accounts. My conclusion stems from this ayat and the Hadith I post later on, but it is quite apparent that Islam resoundly rejects the idea that any man is superior to the other based on inherent traits.

So you say. Yet every verse of the qur'an screams the opposite, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

[/FONT]

Secondly, if you cannot see how racism deals with slavery and how the fact that Islam rejects that PoV is relevant I don't know what to say. Maybe you need to educate yourself a bit more about the colonialism from the secular West.

Muslim slavery is based on religion more than race. (Although modern Muslim slavery is extremely racist.) Are you asserting that slavery based on religion is better than slavery based on race? If not, there is no relevance.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Blanket statements are so amusing, support your idea because there is no social caste in Islam. [FONT="]

I didn't assert there was.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT="]It is profoundly puzzling how someone cannot see the relevance in this, merely it points your own bias.

[/FONT] Wrong. The conditions of people placed in bondage during the Rashidun Caliphate was incomparable to the brutal treatment so prevalent everywhere else.

Prove it.

It's a wonder you don't see the mines of Potosi in Islamic history. Even with the total corruption of Shariah, Muslims retained a sense of decency the Europeans were clearly devoid of. Your cherished ideals of capitalism do that to people.

Don't tell me what ideas I cherish.

You are making a positive assertion--that Muslim slaves lived under better conditions than slaves in non-Muslim countries. Prove it.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Empires at the time such as Rome and the Indian societies knows this to be true. Same with the Chinese and the Persian empires, the slave was held in utter disregard.

Prove it.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I also know the many religious arguments made in America for the establishment of slavery. Or before that in the New World. And before that the pagans. Do you?[FONT="]

Yes. Religion is evil. The Bible is no more God's word than is the qur'an. Why are you bringing it up. Do you think it is?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Capture you and put you in sexual slavery? Blanket statements again! The slaves mentioned were all the result of war and hostile actions as per the treacher and broken treaties signed by various tribes.

Right. The entire history of Muslim world conquest, and centuries of leading the world in the efficient and profitable market in slaves, is because of broken treaties. Where on earth did you learn your history?

My goal is to protect my family, and to hold you in bondage until either my brother who was tortured and killed in captivity and my sister who was gang raped are released or until you show your own good faith and intentions to be a productive member of society.

Baloney. Muslim captive were slaves for life and so were their children. Millions of them were sold to Christians, even Americans. It was a for-profit enterprise, justified by the qur'an. Fact.

People were held for good reason.

Which was what?

For me, there is no good reason to enslave someone, especially into sexual slavery. But then, I'm not Muslim.

Nope, he must respect the wishes of his maidens such as their decision to marry. He must ask her people in good faith and if the women is impregnated the child and she are freed automatically. [FONT="]

Support?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT="]
[/FONT] Bondage was the direct result of the fact that Muslims were held and tortured by hostile tribes. There never was an economic principle to perpetuate slavery.

This is a flat out falsehood. It is simply false. Muslim slave traders travelled the world conquering people and raiding other countries hundreds of miles away for the sole purpose of capturing human beings to sell them into slavery. This is an historic fact. Would you like me to cite the nuetral sources that describe this history in detail? It was 100% completely economic. I'm afraid you've been the victim of Muslim propaganda. Muslims were the most extensive and successful slavers in the history of the world. Not because they violated the qur'an, but because they followed it.

You just quoted them [FONT="]

[/FONT] The idea that a former slave had no social restrictions attached to him is immoral. Your warped thinking is too amusing.

The fact that the used to be a slave is immoral. To me. Not to you, apparently, because you are Muslim.

I would think that the idea of a man appointed on the basis of merit is innovate, of course merit based appointments are immoral too now aren't they

What does any of this have to do with kidnapping someone and selling him on an auction block?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Again another blanket statement, bondage was not ascribed to religion. It was a result of warfare.

Well, I'll grant you this much. Islam is extremely warlike, so its entire history has been one of war. The two Islamic institutions, war and slavery, are closely linked.

[FONT="]By now I know when my ******** detector should start ringing. When discussing scripture they suddenly shift their viewpoint to a historical one, that is a major indicator.

As are the multitudes of unsupported assertions while the fact is that there was no "slave market" during the Rashidun caliphate. There were no "slave raiding parties". It was an external condition imposed on them by the hostile tribes of the Quraish.

Your arguments are hollow.

[/FONT] There it is again. We are talking about the idea and implementation of Shariah. It is obvious that this system of government disintegrated with the death of Ali.

I only wish this were true. The poor women of Iran, living in Purdah, wish it were true as well.

Show me. And please highlight your use of the word ransom. It directly is an admission of the fact that these were people who were actively engaged in warfare and imposed this system of bondage upon the Caliphate. [FONT="]

Wait, now you're saying that some other nation imposed slavery on the Caliphate? Who? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Al-itq was the de facto means [FONT="]to free people and al-itq organized a means if the first failed. So show me how these two principles do not explicitly outlaw slavery, make an actual argument [/FONT][FONT="]

They had nothing whatsoever to do with outlawing slavery. Obviously, if the qur'an permits slavery, and the prophet practiced it, slavery is permitted in Islam, which is why it has been practiced by Muslims for 14 centuries.

The fact that if a slave manages to scrape together enough money, he can buy his freedom, is a characteristic of virtually every slave society.
[/FONT]

[FONT="]
[/FONT] Wrong the concept of things such as Harems are not Islamic. You keep muddling the lines between the Rashidun and their successors.

Yes, if you're a poor African minding your own business, and a troop of bearded men on horseback bearing swords swoops down on you and kidnaps you to take home to sell in a slave market, you really don't care if it's the 8th century or the 20th. You're still miserable, and your misery is caused by Muslims practicing Islam, reading the qur'an.

There are many historical examples of the treachery of the Quraish. And we are talking about the rightly guided Caliphs sorry, try to pay attention.

No, you are. The rest of us don't care who's leading you, if you're perpetuating evil, it's evil.

 

[Autodidact]

I am surprised you cannot understand the simplest of verses that references wartime and commands the freedom of those prisoners at the conclusion of the war. Economic means and exploitation are outside the fold of Islam.

Are you honestly denying that slavery is permissible in the qur'an, hadith, life of the prophet and Islam? Do I really have to go back to the beginning of our discussion and make this clear? It's so elementary.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Tell me where.

Where the Muslim empire conquered a huge swath of the world? Where they took millions of people into slavery? Where Muslim slavers travelled the world capturing and transporting slaves? What is it you want to know exactly? None of this is controversial. Every educated person knows that the Muslim slave trade spanned the globe for centuries. Do you seriously want me to cite this elementary fact of world history? Because I'm more than happy to do so.

Irrelevant, the concept of Western slavery is not applicable.

Wow, my simple question is so hard for Muslims to answer. We atheists find it trivially easy, because our moral sense has not been retarded by clinging to an ancient tribal taboo-based moral system.

For some reason no Muslim on this thread can answer this simple question: Slavery, right or wrong?

Precisely why you are wrong. Because these people could control their own freedom.

This is a lie. They were slaves. Slaves can't control their freedom. They were, and are, someone else's property. I think that's wrong. What do you think?

A sex slave would indicate that a person has unilateral authority over a person. False. A sex slave would indicate that he owned her and could take her without any permission. False.

Not false at all. He captured her in battle and brought home to live with him as a forced concubine, with not the slightest deference to her feeling in the matter. This is specifically authorized by the qur'an, and practiced by millions of Muslims for centuries.

If you can't see the difference it's your agenda getting in the way.

I can't see the difference between being a slave and being a slave? My agenda is fact.