Ansar Al-‘Adl, I have been reading the links you provided. I remain confused about a few things.

This was cited; "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".

When it say’s the child “belongs” to the slave master, I get the impression that the child “belongs” to the master as a possession just the same as the slave woman “belongs” to the slave master.

Your answer to the cite shows that my impression would be wrong:

“It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well”.

Can you help me understand this, a little better please? I am sure my confusion is due to my ignorance of the original language.

Another thing that has left me confused is the argument that if all the slaves had been freed there would have been no jobs or work for them.

Would have the work they were doing as slaves still have been needed to be done?
If you have fields that require 15 men to work, don’t those fields still require 15 men to work them?

Free the slaves today and then you have 15 jobs ready for the 15 freed slaves tomorrow don’t you?

How long did the gradual ending of slavery by Islam take?

One of your replies cited this:

Two hundred families of Al-Mustalaq faced slavery as a result of their ill-considered plan to attack the Muslims. It should be emphasized here that such a prospect was not as terrible as one may think today. Slaves in the Muslim state enjoyed all their human rights as fellow human being to their masters. This was true only in the land of Islam. Islam treats every individual as a human being who is susceptible to be a good servant of God. Hence no one is despised or looked down upon simply because he lacks in fortune or bad circumstances.

Why was there a need to end such practices? What harm was that type of slavery doing that it needed to be ended?

Thanks
Nimrod