/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The Holy Quran's take on slaves put to prostitution



Bayinah
07-01-2012, 07:53 PM
Asalamualaykum warahmatullah ta'ala wabarakatuhu
Today I came acrooss the 33rd verse of surah Nur which states:
.....But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life..
I believe the Quran is the most eloquent book on earth, in that case, what I'm pondering about is; If the slaves don't desire Chastisy, can they ve forced???
Please help clarify this
Jazaallah Khairun
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
marwen
07-01-2012, 08:22 PM
Prostitution is Haram. It's obvious that, also when someone does not desire chastity, it's haram to help him or push him to do a forbidden act. But the ayah was talking about an even more atrocious sin, when a master forces his slave/maid to prostitution, while the slave does not want to do this sin.

The Ayah was revealed, wAllahu A'alam, when Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salool (a kaafir master of Kuraish) was forcing one of his maids, her name was Mu'adheh ( معاذة ), but she was refusing because she entered in Islam. So she went to the prophet SAW to complain about that, and the ayah was revealed then.
[At tahrir wat-tanweer, Muhamed Al Taher Ibn Aashoor]
Reply

Bayinah
07-02-2012, 07:14 AM
Jazakallah Khair..Appreciate it
Reply

Kei
07-16-2012, 02:42 PM
This makes me wonder...
What of those slaves Muslim men are allowed to keep and use for sex [with their consent]....
Can they be used by more than one man at any given time? :ooh:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
IbnAbdulHakim
07-16-2012, 03:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kei
This makes me wonder...
What of those slaves Muslim men are allowed to keep and use for sex [with their consent]....
Can they be used by more than one man at any given time? :ooh:
for sensitive questions like this, its very difficult to get a satisfying answer especially through the net.


Speaking from experience sis, I find it very scary to approach such topics without first reciting the surahs which give protection (such as surah nas and ayatul kursi) and making my emaan and islam firm.

We all know what the devil is capable of, Allah is most wise and he is extremely good at making us forget that.

This advise is only for muslims obviously, but I think its extremely important to have firm faith with topics which are so sensitive, Allah knows what kind of deviance one can so easily run into these days...



hope i made at least a bit of sense, just my thoughts on it
Reply

Kei
07-16-2012, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
for sensitive questions like this, its very difficult to get a satisfying answer especially through the net.


Speaking from experience sis, I find it very scary to approach such topics without first reciting the surahs which give protection (such as surah nas and ayatul kursi) and making my emaan and islam firm.

We all know what the devil is capable of, Allah is most wise and he is extremely good at making us forget that.

This advise is only for muslims obviously, but I think its extremely important to have firm faith with topics which are so sensitive, Allah knows what kind of deviance one can so easily run into these days...



hope i made at least a bit of sense, just my thoughts on it
I understand, with such a controversial topic, you have to be careful in giving answers, if badly worded, or written in a way which isn't completely clear there is the risk of turning people away from Islam or at least giving them doubts about Islam in their minds.
Thanks for replying :)
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-16-2012, 03:23 PM
no probs, just with certain questions I have one or two people I will allow to answer if you know what I mean.

and one of these peolpe is someone who is constantly helping the orphans in third world countries, leaving every bit of dunya one can imagine to worship Allah and constantly studying the deen.

only someone of this level would I trust in regards to these issues because I got a feeling Allah ahs blessed them in such a way that they understand, truly understand, and can shed that onto us aswell coz we are constantly sinning..
Reply

Salahudeen
07-16-2012, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kei
This makes me wonder...
What of those slaves Muslim men are allowed to keep and use for sex [with their consent]....
Can they be used by more than one man at any given time? :ooh:
In short no, she is same as wife except that she did not enter the house through a marriage contract, no one is permitted to have relations with her except the man to whom she belongs, the only diff between her and wife is that the husband does not have the obligation of spreading his time equally and wealth, however in all other ways she's like his wife in that he must provide for her and treat her kindly, only he is allowed to be with her no one else, and if she gets pregnant by him, the children are recognised as his children and have all the rights that the children from his wife have etc.

If you read the below article, its very good I found.


Mu' meneen Brothers and Sisters, As Salaam Aleikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. (May Allah's Peace, Mercy and Blessings be upon all of you)

One of our brothers has asked this question:

I want to understand the concept of concubines in Islam. Somehow or other the concept is pushed under the rug, whenever I have to tried to bring it up at various places.

These are my concerns: Ø What is a concubine? Ø What is their status in a man’s life, esp a married person’s life? Ø What is the status of the offsprings of this relationship-- to the man, in their lives, wealth and will etc? Ø Does she have to be a muslima, or the religion in this relationship is not of concern? Ø How is this any different from the modern days concept of mistress/prostitution/adultery? A very authentic Hadith narrates that: Take care of whatever is in between your teeth (ie tounge) and whatever is in between your thighs and I promise you Jannah.” According to Sahih Bukhari Rasool Allah (saws) used to teach the young teenagers, that tell me and I will get you married to anyone you want, however do not do the Sin of Zinna. As per the above narrations it is quite obvious that the only kind of sexual relations acceptable in Islam are those of the married couples. But then time and time again I come to read the fact that Rasool Allah (saws) used to have one or two concubines too, aside from his 13 wives? This is very confusing, please explain.

(There may be some grammatical and spelling errors in the above statement. The forum does not change anything from questions, comments and statements received from our readers for circulation in confidentiality.)

ANSWER:

The concept of slave girls in Islam

In the name of Allah, We praise Him, seek His help and ask for His forgiveness. Whoever Allah guides none can misguide, and who-ever He allows to fall astray, none can guide them aright. We bear witness that there is no one (no idol, no person, no grave, no prophet, no imam, no dai, nobody!) worthy of worship but Allah Alone, and we bear witness that Muhammad (saws) is His slave-servant and the seal of His Messengers. May Allah bless you and reward you for asking this question. It is true that a lot of people push this subject ‘under the rug’ and do not understand it or are sometimes ashamed of this concept. That is because, today’s society and behavior is absolutely different from the conditions prevalent 1400 years ago at the time of Revelation of the Quran. There is no place on earth where this concept is practiced today, thus to really understand the concept in its entirety, we must try to imagine the times of the Revelation of the Glorious Quran.

Since time immemorial, slavery was an accepted practice; thus it was not Islam that started this practice, but rather Islam was the first system to inculcate the freedom of slaves and take steps to make them equal citizens of society. Slavery was abolished in modern society only a couple of centuries ago, and was openly practiced in almost all parts of the civilized world even until the early 1900s. But Islam made it a virtue to free slaves, and inculcate them into society as equal citizens, almost 1400 years ago!

So, how did people (men and women) become slaves? There were several ways in earlier times how a free person would become a slave.

The already existent slaves and their offspring were also considered slaves. People used to steal children and then sell them as slaves in another place. One tribe would attack another tribe, kill the men, and take the women and children as slaves and then sell them as war-booty.

This practice was prevalent all over the world at the times, thus we must remember that Islam neither started it, nor encouraged it. Islam, in fact closed almost all the doors on how a free man becomes a slave, and in reality opened all the doors to free these slaves and make them responsible members in society. Islam was instrumental in eradicating slavery and made it a virtue and a means of reward from Allah to free slaves and inculcate them into society.

The Messenger of Allah (saws) declared it a sin to kidnap any free man, woman or child and make them slaves. After the wars, the Prophet (saws) used to exchange the Prisoners of War if both the warring parties agreed to it. If not, the captives were set free by taking a ransom for them. If the slaves or their families could not afford the ransom, most times the Prophet (saws) showed generosity and released them without any ransom. Only if none of the above were possible, and the captives had no place to return to, then these captives were made slaves and all efforts were taken to inculcate them into the existing Islamic Society.

In some instances, when the enemy was still at war, there was always a fear that if the Prisoners of War were released, they would go back and join their armies and attack the Muslims again. During these times, the Messenger of Allah (saws) allowed the prisoners to be taken as slaves as was the prevalent system of the times. Rather than put them in jail, the slaves were distributed to each household and they were responsible for the welfare of the slaves. The Messenger of Allah (saws) exhorted the believers to feed them what they ate themselves, and dress them in the clothes that they themselves dressed.

Thus, there arose a issue with the women who were captured as Prisoners of War, and were not exchanged, nor ransomed, nor had any place to return to. Most times the wars were with tribes, and whoever won these wars, the losing tribes were completely annihilated. Thus there was no place to send the Prisoners of War back to, and it became imperative that these people were inculcated within the society. Thus there were two choices left with the slave girls:

Leave them alone in society with no family and no protection.

Give them under the guardianship and protection of an existing family.

Option-1. Leave them alone in society with no family and no protection.

This would not have been a good option. There was obviously a fear that these women, who had absolutely no family and tribe to protect or feed them, would start immoral practices if left to fend for themselves. And because no one could determine their lineage, no honorable person at that time would marry them outright. And also it would not be right to just leave these women, who had absolutely no means, no family, and no protection in a foreign land.

Option-2 Give them under the guardianship of an existing family

The state would determine which slave girl to which household. Neither the people who received the slave girl, nor the slave girl had a choice. Whatever was allotted by the state was received by them. This was considered the best and novel system to eradicate slavery and accept the slaves as members of society. We must not try to imagine this system of distribution and acceptance in today’s society, but rather 1400 years at the time of the Prophet (saws). The training and discipline of the noble companions of the Prophet (saws), and the true Islamic society which was created in light of the Holy Quran and the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (saws) must be kept in view to get a full picture of the condition of the times.

Your comment: What is a concubine?

The slave girl that was allotted by the state to the respective household, thus became the consort of one member of the household. Only this person was allowed to have a sexual relationship with this slave girl. The difference between this person’s wife and the slave girl was that his wife came into his house through the proper marriage contract (Nikaah), and the slave girl was allotted by the state.

Your comment : What is their status in a man’s life, esp a married person’s life?

The status was like his wife. Only the person who was allotted the slave girl was allowed to have a sexual relationship with her. If the slave girl was allotted to the father, then the brothers or the sons had absolutely no right towards this girl. The other difference was that the Islamic law of equality of time and sustenance did not apply between the wives and the slave girl.

Your comment: What is the status of the offsprings of this relationship-- to the man, in their lives, wealth and will etc?

The children were exactly like the other children from the person’s legally wedded wife. They were to be given exactly the same rights as his other children. The children of the slave girl would inherit the property exactly as the other children. There was absolutely no difference amongst the children. And once any slave girl bore a child, she could not be sold to anybody else and thus became a permanent member of the household.

Your comment: Does she have to be a muslima, or the religion in this relationship is not of concern?

No, this slave girl did not have to be a Muslima. In fact, all the wars fought were between the Muslims and the non-believers, thus most of these slave girls were non-Muslims. But through this system of allocation, this woman was encompassed into Islamic society, and because of the behavior and character of the Muslims of the times, the woman, more often than not, would accept Islam.

Your comment: How is this any different from the modern days concept of mistress/prostitution/adultery?

There is a huge difference between the slave girls of those times and the system of prostitution which is so prevalent as a disease in today’s society.

The slave girl was a social issue of the times, which if not solved by Islam would give rise to adultery and prostitution. In prostitution, the woman sells here services for a fee to anyone who is willing to pay! The slave girl was taken into a household as a full member.

In prostitution, the woman has sexual relationships with many men! The slave girl would have sexual relations only with the person she was given to; very similar to the husband-wife relationship, the only difference being that the wife came into the house through a marriage contract, and the slave girl was allotted to the person by the state.

Prostitution is a result of illegal lust, and is a huge sin in the eyes of Allah. The allocation of slave girls was a issue of the times to envelope the woman taken as slaves in a war into the Islamic society.

Prostitution and adultery do not have any responsibility attached to it! The man- woman have a one-off relationship and depart. The slave girls were a responsibility of the person, who spent on them, gave them a place to live, fed them, clothed them, and raised their children as his children. The children from adultery and prostitution are regarded as born out of wedlock and grow up without the name and without the shadow of a father. The children of the slave girls were known as the children of the person, grew up with his other children, and had exactly the same rights and inheritance as the other offspring. The system of slave girls was accepted and respected by the Islamic society of the times. The slave girl was treated like his wife, and the children from these slave girls were treated like their children by society. No religion, no state, no moral society accepts and respects the institutions of prostitution and adultery. This is a disease of society and every moral society has tried to eradicate this disease with little success.

Again, I reiterate that this system of slaves was not started by Islam, but was prevalent in the society in those times. Islam tried to encompass the slaves into Islamic society and gave them the respect and honor of being equal members and citizens of society. Almost all the doors and ways of creating new slaves were closed, and several options were created to free these slaves and entwine them into the Islamic society. It was considered a virtue in Islam to free slaves and a means of great reward from Allah Subhanah. Islam created a society whereby the compensation for repentance for many sins like murder, breaking of promises, missing of fasts, etc. was the freeing of slaves. In this way, Islam created an environment whereby slaves were made free and allowed to inculcate themselves into the normal Islamic society. We must be careful not to look into this ‘slave-girls’ issue in isolation, but rather look at the whole picture of the Islamic society at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saws). The training, the discipline, the character, and the morals of the noble companions was a direct result of their association and teachings and guidance of the Prophet (saws) himself. The values and degree of ‘Taqwa’ (God consciousness) and the love for the promised Paradise was so great amongst the noble companions of the Messenger of Allah (saws), that the system of justice and morality of the times just cannot be compared to today’s un-Godly times! One must not compare the slaves in Islam to the slaves taken by the modern colonists, who captured any free man in sight in the occupied territories like Africa, chained them and shipped them to their countries and treated them worse than animals! Among the slaves of Islam were people of stature like Hadrat Bilaal (r.a.), Hadrat Ammar bin Yasser (r.a.), Hadrat Salman al Faarsi (r.a.) and Hadrat Zaid bin Haritha(r.a.), the freed slave and adopted son of the Messenger of Allah (saws) himself. The status of Hadrat Zaid bin Haritha (r.a.) is such that he is the only companion of the Prophet (saws) who is mentioned by name by Allah in the Holy Quran. Thus the concept and picture of the slavery as practiced by the west, is absolutely different from the concept of slaves in Islam!

Your comment: But then time and time again I come to read the fact that Rasool Allah (saws) used to have one or two concubines too, aside from his 13 wives?

The Messenger of Allah (saws) had 11 wives in total during his lifetime, and the most wives he had at any one time were nine. Some of the allotted captives of war and slave girls, became his noble wives and received the title and honor of being called the ‘mother of the believers’ by Allah Himself in the Holy Quran. Amongst them was Hadrat Saffiyyah, who was a Jew. She was allotted to the Prophet (saws) as a slave girl, converted to Islam and was married to the Messenger of Allah (saws). Another of his wives who came as a slave and was allotted to the Prophet (saws) was Hadrat Jawarriyah (r.a.) from the tribe of Banu Haris. She too converted to Islam and was married to the Messenger of Allah (saws). He also had a couple of slaves girls whom he did not marry, like Hadrat Maria Kibtia and Hadrat Rehaana, for reasons best known to Allah and His Messenger (saws). But the scholars are unanimous in their opinion that the Messenger of Allah (saws) treated them with love and respect exactly like his other wives. And even after the death of the Prophet (saws), these slave girls of the Prophet (saws) did not marry anybody else like his wives, and they were respected by the muslims in the same honor as the other wives of the Prophet (saws).

And Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

May Allah guide you and us all to the Siraat al-Mustaqeem.

Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allah’s Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Your brother and well wisher in Islam,

Burhan
Reply

LauraS
09-11-2012, 03:38 PM
Maybe Islam teaches that masters should be respectful to their slaves but do you honestly think that always happened? That a man didn't sleep with his slave simply because he could or women were't just kidnapped to be sold to hareems? You say Islamic slavery was different from those that shipped slaves off the America but that's not true. Muslims used to raid non-Muslim areas and round up people to sell in the same way other groups did. These people were sold by Muslims slave merchants for profit, not for protection or anything of the sort. Do you think the girls were happy with their new life shipped to foreign lands and sold to men who had the "right" to sleep with them?

Slavery is wrong no matter what and Muslims were guilty of kidnapping people to for profit, they didn't find homeless people who skipped merrily into their homes and beds. Why try to justify slavery just because Muslims took part in taking slaves? Pretty much all races and cultures have been guilty of it.
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 03:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Muslims were guilty of kidnapping people to for profit
Care to back that up from a reputable history source?
Reply

Independent
09-11-2012, 05:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Care to back that up from a reputable history source?
This is a summary from wikipedia (yes, I know it's wikipedia is not a source itself, but it gives a rough picture):

‘Historians estimate that between 10 and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 650 and 1900. The term Arab when used in historical documents often represented a cultural term rather than a "racial" term, and many of the "Arab" slave traders such as Tippu Tip and others were indistinguishable from the "Africans" whom they enslaved and sold. Due to the nature of the Arab slave trade it is also impossible to be precise about actual numbers. Additionally, approximately 11 million African slaves were taken to the Americas. Likewise, more than 2 million Africans died on the ship before reaching the destinations in the Arab world, therefore the slave traders would obtain the same amount of Africans in order to make up for the loss.

To a smaller degree, Arabs also enslaved Europeans. According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries. These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland. The impact of these attacks was devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Pirate raids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century.’


Are you saying this trade did not exist? It is massively documented by contemporary eyewitness accounts, let alone historians. Even in my own country (Ireland), far from the Barbary coast, the entire population of the village of Baltimore was abducted by Barbary pirates. The fate of the male European slaves was often the galleys, which was a hard and short life. The fate of the women is not to be imagined.
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This is a summary from wikipedia
I said a reliable historical source of the 'mal treatment' & the islamic allowance of that to take place!
NOT a secondary opinion upon which a tertiary opinion is built.

best,
Reply

Aprender
09-11-2012, 06:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Are you saying this trade did not exist? It is massively documented by contemporary eyewitness accounts, let alone historians.
I don't think anyone here is saying that Muslims never ever had slaves.

But since it's so massively documented then please do share one of these authentic sources with us so we can read. I didn't see anything from the wikipedia mumbo jumbo you posted above that said anything about the harsh treatment of slaves either as is being implied here. Thanks.
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
I don't think anyone here is saying that Muslims never ever had slaves.
Indeed per thread title!
LauraS is only too happy to distort the events and come up with her own brand of how we loved to kidnap slaves etc.
Islam came upon people who were already into slave trade and the verses in the Quran speak clearly not only of good treatment but also the gradual abolition of slavery!
you know what they say about opinions? they're like assholes everyone has one, there's no reason to actually be one and there's no shortage of those on the web!
Reply

Perseveranze
09-11-2012, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Maybe Islam teaches that masters should be respectful to their slaves but do you honestly think that always happened? That a man didn't sleep with his slave simply because he could or women were't just kidnapped to be sold to hareems? You say Islamic slavery was different from those that shipped slaves off the America but that's not true. Muslims used to raid non-Muslim areas and round up people to sell in the same way other groups did. These people were sold by Muslims slave merchants for profit, not for protection or anything of the sort. Do you think the girls were happy with their new life shipped to foreign lands and sold to men who had the "right" to sleep with them?

Slavery is wrong no matter what and Muslims were guilty of kidnapping people to for profit, they didn't find homeless people who skipped merrily into their homes and beds. Why try to justify slavery just because Muslims took part in taking slaves? Pretty much all races and cultures have been guilty of it.
1. Actually, in contrast to the west, in Muslim nations, Slaves were generally protected by the law.


What was notably different from the slavery of the western world, however, was the degree to which they [slaves] were protected by Muslim law. When the law was observed, their treatment was good. They might expect to marry and have families of their own, and they had a good chance of being freed. There were also built in avenues of escape. - Gwyn Campbell; Frank Cass, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004

What this meant was, unlike in western slave trade, the slave in Muslim countries wasn't chained up, locked in a room or restricted to remain in a single area. They were able to freely move around and gain recognition within the general community. At any given moment they had the power to go a religious police or Qadi (judge) to complain about their problems and seek justice.

2. What you're referring to, (if it's even true, I havn't really delved into this area) would've occured in the latter part of Islamic history. Certainly, as far as I've seen, none of the early Islamic conquests had any intention of "enslaving people for profits".

People were generally given the choice of; conversion, protected dhimmi (which most chose), or fight till death/risk of capture. In capture, they knew that they may be free'd, allowed dhimmi, executed (though this is exercised in extreme circumstances) or become slaves (it just depended).

That's not to say people weren't enslaved (those that fought /refused their options and got captured were), but it certainly had its reasons for happening. A little context taken into account here as well -


It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle - Roger DuPasquier. Unveiling Islam. Islamic Texts Society, 1992, p. 104
Reply

LauraS
09-11-2012, 07:48 PM
I never said the slaves were treated harshly, neither did I say Muslims love to kidnap people. I just pointed out that slave traders raided towns to take slaves and sail them back to Muslim lands, just as western countries did in Africa. Are you saying you had never heard of this or that unless there's a source you approve of you don't believe it? Wikipedia might not be a great source but no one sat to write a big false article about the slave trade for the fun of it. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.*****************/article...bary-corsairs/

http://www.theglobaldispatches.com/articles/afro-turks
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 07:52 PM
edit............
Reply

Aprender
09-11-2012, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Are you saying you had never heard of this or that unless there's a source you approve of you don't believe it? Wikipedia might not be a great source but no one sat to write a big false article about the slave trade for the fun of it. Here are a couple of links:
You sound angry, Laura. Calm down. As a film student this type of thing is not good for your objectivity. It's not good to imply things that other people didn't say but I am glad you posed these questions for clarification. What you wrote did imply that the slaves weren't treated right by Muslims. You reasoned that only because a few Muslims might not have followed the rules set in place for Muslim slaves. And because of that slaves were treated no different than in Western countries. That is not true. To err is human.

And yes. The right sources are important when taking our information about historical facts. I wouldn't write a paper about a historical event and expect to get an A on it if my sources were a bunch of blogs written by crackpots and racists.

Thank you for these links.
Reply

Perseveranze
09-11-2012, 07:58 PM
I edited (added to) my post if you want to re-read it.
Reply

Independent
09-11-2012, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I said a reliable historical source of the 'mal treatment' & the islamic allowance of that to take place!
NOT a secondary opinion upon which a tertiary opinion is built.
As I said, I used the wikipedia quote because it is a quick summary of the subject, not a source in itself. We are talking about a trade covering more than 1000 years across huge geographical areas in Europe, Africa and the Middle East - the bibliography would be massive. This is a history of bad men who were Muslims, it doesn't need to reflect on Islam itself if men did not follow Islamic rules. Nevertheless the numbers of slaves were very large, so we're not talking one or two bad apples by any means.

Since I was asked, I have found a few verbatim descriptions from three 18th century victims (called Gramaye, Struys and Foss) who were seized by Barbary pirates:

Gramaye describes how, when the ship is first seized, individual passengers are beaten for information about who could be ransomed: “in such cases, the bastinado begins to stir about upon the Posteriors of such as are suspected.” Canes may be used on the stomach too, “almost enough to break the kidneys”. They were then “chained together in heaps, and thrust up like Herrings in the bottome of the ship, to be kept for the Butherie or Market”.

Jan Struys describes how within minutes of his capture: “they put me in a Galley, stript off my Robes, shaved my head, and set me to an Oar, which was work enough for six of us to tug at.”

Foss says new slaves had to “creep in, upon our hands and knees,” into their cabin prison, where they couldn’t sleep because “such quantities of…vermine, such as lice, bugs and fleas“. Just as in the Atlantic slave trade, many prisoners died of the conditions before they even reached port. If so they were “Thrown into the sea without the slightest regard”.
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 08:54 PM
How is the above relevant to the thread title, to LauraS' allegations or to what I personally requested?

best,
Reply

Independent
09-11-2012, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
How is the above relevant to the thread title, to LauraS' allegations or to what I personally requested?
It came from the question about concubinage, which is a form of slavery, and hence the status of slavery in Islam. But I agree, it's a huge topic in itself and deserves its own thread if it is to be discussed at all. I replied because I was asked.

May i also say....I am new to this forum and (for that matter) any other Islamic forum. I am here because Muslims have told me they are misunderstood, so I felt i should immerse myself in a Muslim centric view of the world and see what it looked like. (It was actually current affairs i was most interested in, but so far that discussion has been limited here.) I am truly astonished if, as I now take it, the Barbary slave trade etc is not accepted history among Muslims. That's a much more profound level of disagreement than I ever expected. Unlike some other areas of disagreement between Islam and the West, this history is merely about the failings of men, not Islam - it shouldn't be contentious on religious grounds. Of course, I expected a different emphasis in Muslim history. But if it is truly the case that, in the Muslim historical tradition, the trade is denied entirely, despite the massive physical, political and verbatim record, then I honestly don't know what history you have left.

Nevertheless, this is your forum, I am a guest (even if I invited myself). I don't wish to be disrespectful in what i say, and i don't mean to offend. If you feel I stop posting on this forum then I will do that.
Reply

جوري
09-11-2012, 10:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
If you feel I stop posting on this forum then I will do that.
I have no feelings on the matter and nothing more to impart on this particular topic! If you're interested in re-visiting this topic in a more scholarly fashion and more protracted form, I recommend the 'Useful index thread' and would also like to add that I generally feel sad that Muslims have to be so apologetic and looking to dispel negativity being perpetuated against them or change how they're being perceived. I often find that the problem lies with the party holding the 'grievance'- I am not a pacifist nor apologetic .. so at the end of the day it is up to you how you wish to perceive Islam and Muslims!

best,
Reply

Aprender
09-11-2012, 11:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I am truly astonished if, as I now take it, the Barbary slave trade etc is not accepted history among Muslims. That's a much more profound level of disagreement than I ever expected. Unlike some other areas of disagreement between Islam and the West, this history is merely about the failings of men, not Islam - it shouldn't be contentious on religious grounds.
Once again, nowhere has anyone on this message board at any point and time said that the Barbary slave trade did not happen!

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
But if it is truly the case that, in the Muslim historical tradition, the trade is denied entirely, despite the massive physical, political and verbatim record, then I honestly don't know what history you have left.
Why is it that you feel the need to twist words around to suit your own liking? No one has denied slavery being a part of Islamic history! The disagreement comes from members here insinuating that the gross mistreatment and torture of slaves is acceptable in Islamic law when that is not the case. This denial you speak of is from your own misunderstanding. Please read carefully in the future.
Reply

Muhammad
09-11-2012, 11:27 PM
I only just came across an article about slavery in Islam. Here's a snippet that might be relevant here:



...Because of the aforementioned examples of the divine and prophetic instructions regarding slavery, no other nation or religious group in the world treated slaves better than the Muslims did, and here are the testimonies of the non-Muslim historians and leaders regarding this very fact: (quotations from http://www.**************/slavery/)


On the attitude of Muslim master with his slaves, Will Durant says, "…he handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe." [Hurgronje C., Mohammedanism, (N.Y., 1916), p. 128 as quoted by W. Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. IV (N.Y., 1950), p. 209.]

At the end of the 18th century, Mouradgea d'Ohsson (a main source of information for the Western writers on the Ottoman Empire) declared:"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." [As quoted in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol.I, p. 35.]

P. L Riviere wrote: "A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognized that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization."
[Riviere P.L., Revue Bleaue (June 1939).]

Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries: "The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir." [Cherfils, Bonaparte et l'Islam (Paris, 1914).]



If anybody is interested in reading more about the issue of slavery in Islam, please feel free to browse through this post which links to more than twenty useful threads or posts on the topic: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1530640
Reply

LauraS
09-12-2012, 11:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
You sound angry, Laura. Calm down. As a film student this type of thing is not good for your objectivity. It's not good to imply things that other people didn't say but I am glad you posed these questions for clarification. What you wrote did imply that the slaves weren't treated right by Muslims. You reasoned that only because a few Muslims might not have followed the rules set in place for Muslim slaves. And because of that slaves were treated no different than in Western countries. That is not true. To err is human.

And yes. The right sources are important when taking our information about historical facts. I wouldn't write a paper about a historical event and expect to get an A on it if my sources were a bunch of blogs written by crackpots and racists.

Thank you for these links.
But taking people from their homes to sell is not a good way of treating people, do you honestly think they were treated gently? And you post further down that no one is denying the actions of the barbary pirates, so you acknowledge they raided lands to take people as slaves. If you know this happened why do you not believe the sources? Muhammad writes of the positive way in which slaves were treated by their Islamic masters, I don't ignore what he says, so don't you ignore what Independent says about those that were treated badly. The arrogance of one human to think he/she can own another is never a good thing.

I don't wish for this to inflame things but I have to put it because it's how I feel- for a non-Muslim being on this forum is very frustrating because there are post after post of crimes committed by non-Muslims (sometimes based on flimsy evidence) but as soon as anything occurs where a Muslim is in the wrong no source is good enough to prove it. There's a refusal to admit to any wrong done by Muslims.
Reply

Muhaba
09-12-2012, 12:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Bayinah
Asalamualaykum warahmatullah ta'ala wabarakatuhu
Today I came acrooss the 33rd verse of surah Nur which states:
.....But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life..
I believe the Quran is the most eloquent book on earth, in that case, what I'm pondering about is; If the slaves don't desire Chastisy, can they ve forced???
Please help clarify this
Jazaallah Khairun
your question doesn't make sense. why would you need to force them if they themselves don't want chastity. force is only used when person doesn't willingly want to do the thing. for example, if you willingly want to give someone money, would anyone need to force you to do that.

slaves were under the power of their masters, and that verse was revealed at a particular time and situation, when slaves were treated badly and had no rights. furthermore, it may be that the laws about zina (illegal sex) might not have been revealed then. So Allah said that the slaves who wanted chastity shouldn't be forced. the ruling about zina may have been revealed later where illegal sex relations were forbidden and that applied to both free people and slaves, except that the slave's punishment for zina is half the free person's punishment. See Surah 4 and other verses about zina, marriage, etc.

Allah gave great rights to slaves. If you see all the verses about slaves, you will know how Allah raised their position and made it possible for them to get freedom.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kei
This makes me wonder...
What of those slaves Muslim men are allowed to keep and use for sex [with their consent]....
Can they be used by more than one man at any given time? :ooh:
no, they can't be given to more than one man. the slave is like the wife of the man and just as the wife has only one husband, likewise, the slave also has one male partner. If the slave is unmarried, her master can have relations with her but not anyone else. Only her master. It's not even possible for a man to say to his relative or friend that he can have relations with his slave. The only one who has rights to have relations is the slave's own master.

If the slave gets married, then the master loses the rights to have relations with the slave.

In the past the prisoners of war were distributed by the Muslim government among the soldiers. and the soldier had the right to have relations with his own female slave.

I don't know how true it is that men can buy slaves in the market and then have relations with them. there are some verses in the Quran about فيء , a name for booty, that make me think that maybe only those slaves distributed by the government were the ones that the master could have relations with. The Quran specifies that men can have relations with "those whom their right hands possess." Allah says in Chapter 4, verse 25:

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Note that Allah said that others should marry them. He didn't say that they should be given as gift to them.

What was the practice of the Sahaba regarding slaves given as gifts to others or sold to others?



I heard that in the past men from various countries would go to Sudan and buy slaves in the market and then have relations with them, but that allows room for misuse: how can the government know that the woman is the man's slave and not his girlfriend nor someone he kidnapped? Was there a system to register the slaves to know who the master was? Was there a way to regulate slave transferring to keep slaves from being given from one person to another for a while for sex purposes? etc.

I am sure that the Islamic system is complete and safeguarded slaves from such abuse, but if anyone has information about this from Islamic books and can post with reference it would be great.

(For some rulings about slaves in the Quran, see Chapter 33, verse 50; Chapter 59, verses 7 -11; Chapter 23, verses 5 - 7; chapter 4, verse 25)
Reply

Independent
09-12-2012, 12:07 PM
Muhammad – thank you for those links, they’re very interesting and extensive. I will look through them properly as soon as I have time.

Aprender – Can we keep this from getting personal? I have not deliberately twisted anyone’s words. If I have misunderstood anything, I welcome your help or anyone else’s with explanation.

Let’s go back to the original post from Salahudeen: ‘We must be careful not to look into this ‘slave-girls’ issue in isolation, but rather look at the whole picture of the Islamic society at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saws).’

Therefore, we need to think about slavery as a whole, not just concubinage.

‘Since time immemorial, slavery was an accepted practice; thus it was not Islam that started this practice, but rather Islam was the first system to inculcate the freedom of slaves and take steps to make them equal citizens of society.’

Yes, slavery was endemic in the ancient world. No, Islam was not the first or only society to inculcate the freedom of slaves. This was possible in many societies at different times. (Even in ancient Rome, which was one of most the extreme slaving cultures in history, you can find many examples of freed slaves recorded in documents, on gravestones etc).

‘But Islam made it a virtue to free slaves, and inculcate them into society as equal citizens, almost 1400 years ago!’

Yes, it did, and this was progressive. But there were other cultures that also showed tolerance. As one example in the same region at the same time, in Hebrew law there were many limitations placed on the welfare of slaves and Israelite slaves were automatically manumitted after six years of work.

‘The Messenger of Allah (saws) declared it a sin to kidnap any free man, woman or child and make them slaves.’

Yes, but regrettably not all men or societies who declared themselves Muslim followed the instruction. The Barbary pirates are one example of this and they kidnapped men, women and children both on sea and on land. They were not prisoners of war. The objective was to profit from a trade in humans, either by ransom or by some form of servitude.

‘One must not compare the slaves in Islam to the slaves taken by the modern colonists, who captured any free man in sight in the occupied territories like Africa, chained them and shipped them to their countries and treated them worse than animals!’

I’m not sure it’s meaningful to claim one trade is better than the other, they were both vile. Some slaves in Islamic countries were treated well, but others were treated cruelly and died as a result. The transatlantic slave trade involved very large numbers for perhaps 300 years, but the Arab trade went on far longer so in the end it amounted to larger totals. It all adds up to million of people cast into suffering on either side. I’m not sure if it’s productive to argue which was the worst. The Subsaharan/East Africa aspect of the Arab trade was much bigger than the Barbary trade, although the Barbary trade is better known. Did the Muslim slave traders ‘capture any free man in sight in the occupied territories like Africa’ – yes they did, and on an industrial scale.

Quoting Aprender:
‘No one has denied slavery being a part of Islamic history! The disagreement comes from members here insinuating that the gross mistreatment and torture of slaves is acceptable in Islamic law when that is not the case. This denial you speak of is from your own misunderstanding. Please read carefully in the future.’

No, I have not suggested at any point that these practices are acceptable in Islamic law. I specifically said that I regard this as coming about because of the failings of men, not Islamic law. What we disagree about is the nature or experience of Islamic slavery (what actually happened as opposed to what was supposed to happen according to Islamic ideals).

Why is the Barbary slave trade significant here? Because it contradicts a favourable view of Islamic slavery for many reasons including:


  1. The slaves were obviously kidnapped, not acquired in the course of war
  2. There are innumerable first hand accounts of terrible suffering by the slaves (even if some slaves, in some countries, in some eras had a better experience)
  3. The total number of slaves acquired by Islamic states was very high, over 10 million including the sub-Saharan trade, which is not at all compatible with the idea that slavery was being phased out gradually during the Islamic period (in fact it grew exponentially)
  4. The trade continued for well over 1,000 years until advances in sailing by Western navies allowed gradually them to gain control over the Mediterranean Sea and eliminate the danger. The last openly operating slave market (in the Sultanate of Zanzibar) was forcibly closed by the British in 1873.


Once again, I stress that all this was a failing of men to live up to Islamic ideals, not the ideals themselves. However, the scale is too great to dismiss this. They are not isolated cases, not a few bad apples. They involved whole societies particularly in North Africa over immense periods of time. Brutality existed both for western slaves and Islamic slaves. I don't think it's right for either Western or Islamic society to deny a share in the responsibility for this awful trade.
Reply

جوري
09-12-2012, 04:05 PM


I don't wish for this to inflame things but I have to put it because it's how I feel- for a non-Muslim being on this forum is very frustrating because there are post after post of crimes committed by non-Muslims (sometimes based on flimsy evidence) but as soon as anything occurs where a Muslim is in the wrong no source is good enough to prove it. There's a refusal to admit to any wrong done by Muslims.
We have to fill the gaps that are missing from your media outlets while they're too busy concentrating on whether a Muslim has acetone and a physics book in his home as a link to 'Al Qaeda' what's your point? it is an Islamic forum where we discuss Muslim affairs if it is frustrating for you then don't be a member here!

best,
Reply

Aprender
09-12-2012, 06:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Brutality existed both for western slaves and Islamic slaves. I don't think it's right for either Western or Islamic society to deny a share in the responsibility for this awful trade.
For the last time, no one on this message board is dismissing that bad things didn't happen to slaves, Islamic or otherwise! You just need to understand that it's not the way Islamic Law dictated slaves to be treated. And you seem to get that, but no one here is saying that it didn't happen.
Reply

Aprender
09-12-2012, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
If you know this happened why do you not believe the sources?
Where did I say I do not believe the sources? Where?
Where did I say I ignore anything that was posted by Independent? And you posted that I acknowledged that it happened already so why would I not believe the sources? How does that make any sense? Show me where I said that I didn't believe the sources. Because I did not. As a matter of fact I thanked you for posting a few more links. As someone who had family members who were slaves I can tell you that this topic is a sensitive one to me and I do not approve of slavery. I hate it. But the fact of the matter is that it was unfortunately the way the world worked back then. It's good not to live in the past though because if I sat here angry at all of the things that happened to my family as a result of slavery I would never smile again.

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
There's a refusal to admit to any wrong done by Muslims.
I disagree with this. I used to be a non-Muslim on this forum too and I never got that idea that Muslims think Muslims never do anything wrong. Plenty of arguments about that. To me it just seems they were on the defensive and I got another point of view. Now being on the other side, it seems to me that Muslims can't ever do anything right, especially in this day and age. Muslim lives are worth nothing globally. You're frustrated? We're all fighting battles, Laura. My battlefield just looks a whole lot different than yours.
Reply

LauraS
09-12-2012, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
I don't think anyone here is saying that Muslims never ever had slaves.

But since it's so massively documented then please do share one of these authentic sources with us so we can read. I didn't see anything from the wikipedia mumbo jumbo you posted above that said anything about the harsh treatment of slaves either as is being implied here. Thanks.
Your response to Independent's post on the barbary slave trade suggested you doubted there were many sources documenting what happened. And why is what was written on the wikipedia page mumbo jumbo? It basically says what other sources have.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
And yes. The right sources are important when taking our information about historical facts. I wouldn't write a paper about a historical event and expect to get an A on it if my sources were a bunch of blogs written by crackpots and racists.
I thought you might have been referring to the sources posted, I apologise.


format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
You reasoned that only because a few Muslims might not have followed the rules set in place for Muslim slaves. And because of that slaves were treated no different than in Western countries. That is not true. To err is human.
I don't think it was only "a few" Muslims that were a part of this slave trade.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender

I disagree with this. I used to be a non-Muslim on this forum too and I never got that idea that Muslims think Muslims never do anything wrong. Plenty of arguments about that. To me it just seems they were on the defensive and I got another point of view. Now being on the other side, it seems to me that Muslims can't ever do anything right, especially in this day and age. Muslim lives are worth nothing globally. You're frustrated? We're all fighting battles, Laura. My battlefield just looks a whole lot different than yours.
For that we can only agree to disagree, but I know even Muslim members have made similar comments to me. What annoyed me on this thread was how it was implied Muslims took slaves for their own benefit and protection, like Gone with the Wind or something. When really there was another whole different profiteering side to it not unlike what was done by the British Empire and others, regardless of what Islam teaches. Also, I said I was frustrated on this forum, not in society. I'm not exactly making out that's a bigger issue than people being massacred because of who they are...


Does it bother anyone that the Quran endorses slavery at all? That Allah never forbid it outright? It's hard to explain what I mean, but today society has advanced and generally slavery is forbidden, but does that mean society's ideas have become more advanced than God because He never fobid slavery?
Reply

Muhammad
09-12-2012, 11:47 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
No, I have not suggested at any point that these practices are acceptable in Islamic law. I specifically said that I regard this as coming about because of the failings of men, not Islamic law. What we disagree about is the nature or experience of Islamic slavery (what actually happened as opposed to what was supposed to happen according to Islamic ideals).

Why is the Barbary slave trade significant here? Because it contradicts a favourable view of Islamic slavery for many reasons including:
  1. The slaves were obviously kidnapped, not acquired in the course of war
  2. There are innumerable first hand accounts of terrible suffering by the slaves (even if some slaves, in some countries, in some eras had a better experience)
  3. The total number of slaves acquired by Islamic states was very high, over 10 million including the sub-Saharan trade, which is not at all compatible with the idea that slavery was being phased out gradually during the Islamic period (in fact it grew exponentially)
  4. The trade continued for well over 1,000 years until advances in sailing by Western navies allowed gradually them to gain control over the Mediterranean Sea and eliminate the danger. The last openly operating slave market (in the Sultanate of Zanzibar) was forcibly closed by the British in 1873.
Once again, I stress that all this was a failing of men to live up to Islamic ideals, not the ideals themselves. However, the scale is too great to dismiss this. They are not isolated cases, not a few bad apples. They involved whole societies particularly in North Africa over immense periods of time. Brutality existed both for western slaves and Islamic slaves. I don't think it's right for either Western or Islamic society to deny a share in the responsibility for this awful trade.
Before coming to the conclusion of anything contradicting a favourable view of Islamic slavery, or of being a failing of men to live up to Islamic ideals, it is pertinent that we first acertain the facts from fiction. Providing a 'summary' from wikipedia does little justice to a topic that is deeply rooted in propaganda and distortion of truths.

Below is an extract from a book (with slight modifications) which provides some coverage of this topic. It is a long extract but worth the read, especially in the relevant chapters. The earlier portion provides an introduction and some background to the discussion. It has been hugely summarised hence many details and quotes have been left out. I hope it helps to clarify many points.




The Myth of Muslim Barbarism and its Aims

S. E. Al-Djazairi



THE DEPICTION OF MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE AGES


For more than ten centuries, Islam, the Prophet (PBUH) and Muslims have been at the centre of a systematic, unremitting campaign of slander and attacks carried by the Christian West. This ten or so century-old propaganda has depicted Muslims and their faith as barbaric, corrupt, inferior, and above all threatening, a peril to the world in general and the Christian West in particular. Although constantly based on lies and distortions, as will be amply shown in this chapter, still such depictions and attacks on Islam and Muslims have lasted from the Middle Ages to this very day, snowballing, changing slightly in form, but remaining the same in substance for more than a millennium. This relentless onslaught is the outcome of the Western inability, or unwillingness, or both, to deviate from such a line for centuries, since it has served its purpose in the war on Islam, as will be obvious from the following...


1. In the Middle Ages


Today’s Western depiction of Muslims and Islam, as already noted, was born in the Middle Ages. It has only changed in form, but in content it has remained roughly the same, with the Muslims painted as perverse, violent, heretics. The medieval perception of Islam, itself, was the result of the violent military encounters between Islam and the Christian West, with the crusades, above all, impacting crucially on such perceptions.

[...]


2. The ‘Renaissance’ (15th-17th Centuries)


Schwoebel notes how the Crusader views of Islam in the Middle Ages were carried over and perpetuated even ‘after the main lines of the medieval world view had crumbled’. [1]...

Little had changed in comparison with the medieval period, indeed, except that the Islamic fiend was now the Ottoman Turk...
Hostility towards Muslims and their faith continued to be based, as in the medieval period, on distortions and exaggerations. As Blanks points out:
‘Deliberate misrepresentations on the part of medieval writers who have access to accurate information has been an enduring issue in the historiography of pre-modern encounters between Europe and Islam.’ [2]

[...]

Christian writers not only criticised Islam for offering sensual pleasure as a reward to the virtuous in the next life, they also condemned the sexual freedom allowed in this life under Muslim law [3]. Islamic regulations governing concubinage, marriage and divorce were at once misunderstood and reviled by Western Europeans [4]. Alexander du Pont in his Roman de Mahomet maintains that the Prophet (PBUH) permitted every Muslim to marry ten wives and every Muslim woman to marry ten times as well [5].

In the view of Western Christian polemists, the progress of Islam could only be due to sexual permissiveness combined with violence. Islam, as Vitkus notes, was defined and caricatured as:

‘A religion of violence and lust-aggressive jihad in this world, and sensual pleasure promised in the next world. But if the doctrines of Islam were so obviously worth of scorn, what could account for the widespread, rapid growth of Islam? Force of arms and successful military aggression, violent conversion by the sword – these are often cited by Christian writers in the early modern era as an explanation for the astonishing achievements of the Islamic conquests. The early Arab Muslims are described as powerful bandits and plunderers united by a voracious appetite for booty.’ [6]...



3. The 18th Century


In this supposed age of enlightenment, of better knowledge of Islam, and supposedly of better attitudes to Muslims and their faith, still, as in the previous periods, Muslim fanaticism, violence, cruelty, ignorance, cunning, deceit, sexual perversion and religious heresy take centre stage in Western depictions...

In his Memoirs [7], Prevost holds that the Turks, Moors and corsairs do not just have a shadowy existence, and an obsession for plunder, but also express sexual pleasures and cruelty, and all at once [8]. Antoine Galland, in his travels to the East, concentrated his attention on the manifestations of violence that were supposedly intrinsic to the East. The violence of the East is often linked with sexuality [9]. This was a common theme of European travel writing: the all invasive seraglio with its crimes of passion was never far from the traveller’s mind [10]...

[...]

Concluding on such distorted depictions of Islam by Christians, Pailin observes:

'With a few exceptions, Islam is examined in order to show that it is inferior to Christianity and offers no plausible threat to the various proofs of the truth of Christian revelation. Christian apologists are not interested in establishing and stating the truth about Muslim faith and practice. They use or abuse Islam in order to support their own convictions about the perfection of Christianity and to exhort their fellow believers to a better practice of their faith.' [11]


Thus, there was little change in comparison with the past or with what was to follow in subsequent centuries.


4. The 19th and 20th Centuries


This period corresponds to the age of empire, an empire that was built on the notion of the Western ‘civilising mission’ of the Muslim lands. Westerners, indeed, sent their armies to the Muslim world, as they held, ‘not to loot, kill, and destroy Islam, but to bring progress, order, freedom, and civilisation to Muslim society.’ In order to justify such a policy, the Islamic world and Muslims had to be shown to be in the grips of a barbaric chaos resulting from their faith, Islam, deemed to be a perverse, violent, false religion, needing removal so that civilisation, at last, can take roots in Muslim society.

One of the vilest societies in Western depictions, which demanded corrective measures, was Algeria’s. Algeria, under Turkish rule, was deemed to be the hot bed of despotism and barbarism... Abbe Raynal describes the degradation and the misery brought about by ‘Islamic despotism’, noting that the Muslim ‘invaders’ destroyed Christian civilisation in North Africa:

‘By their genius for destruction and their fanaticism, and replaced it with slavery and tyranny,’ and so he calls for a Christian conquest to free Barbary from ‘a handful of barbarians’. [12]


Neighbouring Morocco, equally, was ‘much too barbaric to be left without Western enlightenment.’ Just prior to the French colonisation (in 1912), a vast literature depicted the retarding influence of Islam on Morocco, and instead on the need for France to intervene there, and bring back both Morocco and its people into the realm of modernity and progress [13]... The French review, Bulletin, dredged up many stories in the 1890s about the violence in Morocco proving that, truly, the ‘Moors’ were uncivilised, in need of French guidance’ [14]. Robert de Caix, a journalist, took every opportunity to show Morocco as inhabited by barbarians eager for rape and pillage [15]. De Caix argued strongly that the time had come for France to restore order in the Western Maghrib [16].

[...]

Just as in the past, Islam remained in Western view a corrupt, sensual faith... Being sexually perverse apparently does not prevent Islamic society from enslaving women. In 19th century Westerners’ eyes, women in Islam are only seen ‘in terms of subjection, enslavement and concubinage’ [17]. The Oriental men are thus:

'Cruel captors who hold women in their avaricious grasp, who use them as chattels, as trading-goods, with little reverence for them as human beings.’ [18]


In the writings and paintings of the French Romantics movement, the woman becomes for the fanaticised, brutal Muslim a prize of war and piracy: the Muslim prowling upon her, and ravaging her [19]...

This remained the overall view shared by the European and American public, including the most learned; the emphasis placed on the Muslim latent and inadequately restrained savagery, and the fanaticism unleashed against the civilising advance from the West [20]. As a result, colonisation of the Muslim world was deemed the only solution...

[...]

The following chapters will deal with more depictions and views of Islam and Muslims, What can be concluded here, though, is that today, just as centuries before, the hostile depictions of Islam and its adherents have remained based on fallacies and distortions. Summing up the Western view of Islam, Daniel holds that nonsense was accepted, and sound sense distorted [21]. Attacks on Islam, which Daniel notes, are ‘most divorced from reality, and most remote from any contact with Islam’ [22]. Bucaille, equally, has concluded that the erroneous statements made about Islam in the West are the result of systematic denigration [23]. Lueg insists that the threat of Islam often stems from a limited vision rather than reality, and that anything we hear from the Islamic world, we assume to be stated from an inferior position and in a religious context, i.e. that of Islam [24]...



CAPTIVES, SLAVES AND RACISTS


For centuries, once more, according to the established Western view, the Muslims were cruel captors of Christians, pitiless slave traders, and vindictive racists, the whole concept of Islam, in fact, said to be based on the persecution of others, and relying on slavery. The few voices amongst Western Christians such as Sir Geoffrey Fisher, a British Ambassador in Algiers, who denounced the myths of Muslim piracy and cruel treatment of Christian captives, or Davenport and Smith who denounced the myths of Muslim slave trading, were censored and ferociously rebuked. The image that has endured of Muslims is their cruelty on land and sea, to Christians and Black people alike. This image, as to be seen in the final chapter of this work, added to other negative depictions of Islam and Muslims, justified Western colonisation of the Muslim world. Colonisation, indeed, aimed ‘at ending Muslim piracy and cruel treatment of Christians, and putting an end to Muslim slave trading of Africans, besdies, of course, civilising Muslim society’.

[...]


2. The Muslim as ‘the Pitiless Slave Trader’



As with previous issues, we find abundant literature and other forms of depictions of the Muslims as cruel, mass slave traders, whilst in reality there is little to support this. Slave trading is also one of those dark pages Western history shrugs off its shoulders and conveniently lays on the Muslims.


a. Western Propaganda about Muslim Slave Trading


...Cardinal Lavigerie, who played the leading role in seeking to spread Christianity in Algeria during French colonisation of the country (1830-1962), explains that:


'The expansion of this evil (slave trade) is due initially to the traditions of the Muslims of North Africa, those of Egypt and Turks. The Mahometans cannot, for reasons of debauchery, laziness, do without slaves, who infuse them with new strength and new blood... Reducing a Negro to slavery, I was going to say, is one of their fundamental religious rules. They teach in their Qur’an that the Negro does not belong to the human race; that he is between man and the animal, even lower than the later... He (the Muslim) finds glory in reducing the blacks.' [25]


(Where the cardinal found the passages he refers to in the Qur’an is impossible to trace.)

Literary fiction of the past, just like the cinema today, abounds with the same depictions of the evil Muslim slave trader...

The ‘cruelties of the Muslim slave traders’ are caught vividly by photographs, and also by the horrific tales of their victims reported to us by Christian missionaries and other Westerners. A Catholic missionary in 1888 describes how an African slave market was crowded with slaves, joined by cords or chains in long lines, and with others, revealing signs of starvation, in the streets. Nearby was a cemetary where the dying as well as the dead were left for the hyenas [26]...

It is Christianity, we also learn, that has fervently combated this Islamic scourge. In January-February 2003, in a programme on the British Empire, the television channel, Channel 4 [27], explained that it was Christian zeal that banned slavery and even returned slaves to Africa. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary [28], and relying on the same source as Fisher above, that is Livingstone, the channel attributed the worst horrors of slave trading to the Muslims [29]. Equally, the BBC religious programme Everyman [30], devoted a special programme to white Christian missionaries freeing Black African slaves from ‘Muslim slave traders’...

Films from Hollywood, scholarly books for children or college students, and the internet, all equally, incessantly, dwell on the Muslim slave trade of Africans and its horrors... Gradually, as the Western slave trade is removed from knowledge, instead, books of academic nature ‘correct history’, and lecture us about the real slave trade, i.e. the Muslims’, and the terrible woes it inflicted on the African continent. One of the recent works is by Murray Gordon...

[...]

Having considered the Western propaganda on Muslim slave trading, let’s now consider the reality.


b. Fallacies Uncovered: Islam and Slavery


Islam, as a faith, fought slavery, more than any other faith did. Captives, if they became Muslims, were set free; and if they retained their own faith, they were, as Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) told the followers of Islam, nonetheless their brethren [31]. The master who treated them kindly would be acceptable to God; he who abused his power would be shut out of Paradise [32]. And the Muslim master who chastised his slave without cause was bound to set him free [33]. As Segal points out:

‘To a degree unmatched by the various states of Western Christendom, for all the conflict between Protestants and Catholic, the nature of society in Islam was informed by reference to the Divine will, as communicated by the Qur’an. And the Qur’an dealt in some detail with slaves. That pretensions to piety might co-exist with disregard for the spirit and even the letter of such details did not preclude their overall influence. Slaves were to be regarded and treated as people, not simply as possessions.’ [34]


Segal adds:


‘The treatment of slaves in Islam was overall more benign, in part because the values and attitudes promoted by religion inhibited the very development of Western-style capitalism, with its subjugation of people to the priority of profit... In short, far from pursuing the development of an economic system that promoted the depersonalisation of slave labour, Islamic influence was responsible for impeding it.’ [35]


It was also Islam, Rodinson points out, which became the defender of the oppressed people of Africa [36]. In Blyden’s words:


'The introduction of Islam intro Central and Western Africa has been the most important, if not the sole, preservative against the desolation of the slave trade. Mohammedanism furnished a protection to the tribes who embraced it by effectually binding them together in one strong religious fraternity, and enabling them by their united effort to baffle the attempts of powerful pagan slave hunters. Enjoying this comparative immunity from sudden hostile incursions, industry was stimulated among them, industry diminished their poverty; and as they increased in worldly substance, they also increased in desire for knowledge. Gross superstition gradually disappeared from among them... they acquired loftier views, wider tastes, and those energetic habits which so pleasantly distinguished them from their pagan neighbours.' [37]


The Muslims, surely, during conflict, in particular, took slaves; yet the crucial difference with Westerners was in the treatment of slaves. There is nothing (except in Western Christian writing, fiction and missionary witness accounts) in the whole history of Islam which compares to the Western inhumanity in the treatment of slaves, in plantations or in mines, making them toil to their death, or skinning or mutilating them, or burning them on stakes for dissent or for the crime of escape [38]. Islam never enslaved one hundred million Africans, nor did it ruin Africa [39]. The Atlantic Slave Trade between America, Europe and Africa, did [40].

More importantly, in Islam, the emancipated slave is actually, as well as potentially, equal to a free-born citizen. Throughout the Turkish Empire, for instance, and at all periods in its history, slaves have risen repeatedly to the highest offices and have never been ashamed of their origins [41]. The Frenchman, About, notes how sultans of Constantinople and venerated chiefs of Islam are born to female slaves, and they are very proud [42]. Captain Burton mentions that the Pacha of the Syrian caravan with which he travelled to Damascus had been the slave of a slave [43]. Sebuktegin, the father of Mahmud, the founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty (10th-11th Century), was a slave; so was Qutb-ud-din, the conqueror and first king in Delhi, and the true founder, therefore, of Muslim India [44]. Often, again, a great lord of Egypt raises, teaches and grooms a slave child, whom he marries later to his daughter, and gives him full rights; and we come across in Cairo stories of ministers, generals, and magistrates of the highest order who were worth from a thousand to a thousand and a half francs in their early youth [45]. A dynasty of slaves, the Mamluks, ruled Egypt from 1250 until 1798, and it is said that Christians from the Caucasus were glad to be carried off as slaves to Egypt because each one felt that he might rise to be sultan [46]. Some Mamluk rulers such as Baybars and Qala’un occupy places of the first rank in Muslim history, which seems to follow a tradition centuries old. In the 9th century, Ibn Tulun, another slave of Turkish origin rose to the position of governor of Egypt. Many slaves of Slav origin were the highest serving ministers of the last Ummayad Caliph Marwan II in Damascus (744-50) [47]. One of the most remarkable of Caliph Muawiya’s lieutenants was Zayyad ‘the son of his father’ (of unknown father). He became governor of both Kufa and Basra [48]. Zayyad, the son of his father, it was who took Bukhara for Islam [49]. Under the subsequent Abbasid dynasty, only three caliphs were born of free mothers, and all these belong to the eighth century [50]. In Andalusia, the Maghreb, and Sicily, many former slaves could be found in the army, administration and arts [51].

Finally, if the Muslims had treated the Black Africans as badly as Western apologists state, one would ask then: what made and still makes these Africans cling to the faith of their oppressors when no Muslim army ever set foot in the Black African continent?



THE AIMS BEHIND THE MYTH OF MUSLIM BARBARISM


The Muslims do not have writing and studies in which the Western Christians are painted in demonic images, as bloodthirsty murderous fanatics so as to justify attacking them, colonising them and killing them en masse. Even during the Middle Ages, when Islamic civilisation was at its zenith, and most Western nations were at a barbarian level, some even at their pre-historic level, Muslims did not use this as a justification to conquer them, slaughter them and loot their wealth. There is not one single work written by a Muslim where the Westerners are represented as sub-human barbarians who warrant sending armies to civilise them by slaying them en masse. Western Christian writing and opinion making, on the other hand, as already seen, is crammed with such writing and image-painting of their foes: thousands of books, tens of thousands of articles in learned reviews and the media, every year; conferences, seminars, films, radio and television broadcasts; hundreds of university courses and thousands of academics and researchers, all dedicated to the task of darkening Islam and Muslims, using as already seen, distortions in all forms and all sorts for the purpose...


‘Muslim Barbarism’ and Military Invasions: Some Historical Perspectives

b. Western Colonisation (18th-19th centuries)

Algeria:


The same stages and strategy are obvious in the colonisation of Algeria (1830-1962) by the French...

Algeria also needed to be conquered so as to remove ‘Muslim piracy which infested the Mediterranean’ [52]. The view that the Barbary Corsairs were slaying countless thousands of Christians was a powerful call for action against the ‘nest of pirates’ (Algeria) [53]. Admiral Nelson in 1799 hailed: ‘never let us talk of the cruelty of the African slave trade while we permit such horrid war (piracy)’. [54]

The appeal made in 1858 by Monsegnor Pavy. Bishop of Algiers, for the erection of the Cathedral de Notre Dame d’Afrique in Algiers dwelt on the horrors of ‘la piraterie Musulmane’ (Muslim piracy). Monsegnor Pavy insisted that the conquest of 1830 of Algeria had brought ‘these horrors to an end’. [55]...

Of course Algerian piracy was just a myth to justify conquest. Piracy in the 18th century and centuries before, in its near entirety, was the work of Christian Europe [56]. The English Sea Dogs and the Maltese Knights of St John terrorised the seas [57]. Far from being a den of pirates, Algiers was a recognised port of call for English shipping in the 16th century; and so was Tunis, a port of call for Christian shipping [58]. No less remarkable, Fisher points out, was the competition for permanent commerical concessions in those areas [59]. If there was Barbary piracy, it came as a response to the piracy of which the Muslims were victims, and which had been going on for centuries [60]. Muslim piracy, moreover, was never as destructive and as cruel as the Christian, or as depicted in history. Barbary piracy, in fact, as demonstrated by Fisher, most particularly, was one of the greatest myths of modern history to justify the colonisation of Algeria and the whole of North Africa [61]. This was a pattern established long before, the Portuguese conquest of Ceuta in 1415, for instance, was blamed on Muslim piracy, and similar justification used for Spanish attacks on Mers el-Kebir and Oran early in the following century [62]. More importantly, the French blaming Algerian piracy to justify the invasion of Algeria in 1830 rests on hardly any solid ground. Godechot notes how:

‘While the Barbary danger had disappeared on the European coast for more than a hundred years the Christian danger existed on the African shores until the end of the eighteenth century.’ [63]


Algeria had no fleet left in the 19th century to justify the argument of piracy, this fleet having terminated its life in the 18th century [64]. When William Shaler, the new American ambassador arrived in Algiers, in 1815, all he could see of the Algerian fleet was four frigates, five corvettes, one brig, and a galley, a total of eleven vessels [65]. These were to suffer final annihilation by Lord Exmouth’s famed bombardment of Algiers in 1816 [66]. There was no fleet and there were barely any Christian captives, either. In 1830, when the French took Algiers, the number of Christian captives in the city was a mere hundred [67]. Still, it was under such noble premise, of seeking to remove Islamic piracy that the French invasion in 1830 took place. Barbour notes how:


‘In reality, there is little doubt that the basic motive of the French Government was its desire to restore the tottering credit of the regime by a military success; and to win for the Restoration Government the credit which Napoleon had lost by the evacuation of Egypt. In the event Algiers was duly captured and the achievement inspired a number of laudatory poems throughout Europe including one in the dialect of Genoa.’ [68]


The expedition had been accompanied by propaganda to the effect that the French were coming to liberate the Algerians from their Turkish tyrants...


CONCLUSIONS



...Firstly Islam and Muslims are not barbaric fiends, to the contrary, no faith has ever led in the fight for respect for human life, tolerance, equality and humanity as much as Islam, and history is there to testify. As Jameelah writes:

‘Despite all the imperfections which are inevitable in this imperfect world, traditional Muslim society, throughout the centuries of its ascendency, was free from the curses of nationalism, imperialism, class conflicts, racial discrimination, inquisition, heresy hunts, routine torture of war and political prisoners, bloody sectarian strife... This phenomenon is no accident but a natural result of the implementation of the all-embracing divine commandments of Islam which, enjoying until the very recent past, universal reverence, proclaims the rule of Law supreme, and leaves nobody, whether he be a believer or unbeliever, outside the scope of that Law.’ [69]...






REFERENCES


[1] R. Schwoebel: The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk (Nieuwkoop; 1967), p. 147
[2] D.R. Blanks: Western Views of Islam in the Pre-modern Period: A Brief History of Past Approaches; in Western Perceptions (Blanks-Frassetto ed); pp. 11-53; at p. 22.
[3] D.J Vitkus: Early Modern Orientalism: op cit; p. 223.
[4] N. Daniel: Islam and the West, op cit; pp.135-40
[5] Ibid; p. 145.
[6] D.J Vitkus: Early Modern Orientalism: op cit; p. 217.
[7] A. Prevost: Memoires pour servir a l’Histoire de Malte (Paris; 1741)
[8] A. Prevost: Memoires; in A. Gunny: Images of Islam; op cit; p. 170.
[9] R. Kabbani: Imperial Fictions; op cit; p. 25.
[10] Ibid.
[11] D.A. Pailin: Attitudes; op cit; p. 104
[12] Abbe Raynal: Histoire philosophique et politique des establissements et du commerce des Europeanens dans l’Afrique; (Paris; 1826); Vol I; Pp 106 fwd and 137.
[13] Well outlined by both M. Garcia-Arenal: Historiens de l’Espagne, historiens du Maghreb au 19em siecle. Comparaison des stereotypes; Annales; vol 54; 1999; pp 687-703. And J.J. Cook: The Maghrib through French Eyes; 1880-1929; in Through Foreign Eyes; edited by A.A Heggoy (University Press of America; 1982), pp. 57-92.
[14] J.J. Cook: The Maghrib; op cit; p. 76
[15] Ibid; p. 83.
[16] Bulletin: Pays Independant: Maroc; XIV 1; (January 1904); p. 23.
[17] In N. Daniel: Islam and the West; op cit: p. 314.
[18] R. Kabbani: Imperial Fictions, op cit; p. 78
[19] C. Grossir: L ‘ Islam; op cit; p. 99 fwd.
[20] M. Rodinson: Europe; op cit; p. 72
[21] N. Daniel: Islam and the West; op cit; p. 302.
[22] N. Daniel: The Arabs; op cit; p. 232
[23] M. Bucaille: The Bible, the Quran and Science; (Seghers; Paris; 1993); pg. 1.
[24] A. Lueg: The Perception of Islam; op cit; pp. 28; and 21.
[25] Cardinal Lavigerie: lettre sur l’Esclavage Africain, et l’esclavage Africain, Conferences, Paris, (St Sulpice) and Brussels (Ste Gudule).
[26] R.W. Beachey: The Slave Trade of Eastern Africa; (London; Rex Collings; 1976); p. 187.
[27] Seen on S4C; 18 February 2003; 12.10am.
[28] See R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; pp. 350-2.
[29] Seen on S4C; 18 February 2003; 12.10am.
[30] BBC1 on 29 January 2001.
[31] R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; p. 244.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid; p. 245.
[34] R. Segal: Islam’s Black Slaves; (Atlantic Books; London; 2001); p. 5.
[35] Ibid; pp. 5; 6.
[36] Louis Massignon: l’Influence de l’Islam au Moyen Age sur la formation de l’essor des banques Juives; Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales (Institut Fr de Damas) Vol 1; year 1931: pp 3-12. p.12.
[37] Blyden: Islam and Race Distinction, in N. Daniel: Islam, Europe and Empire; op cit; p. 313.
[38] See, for instance, R. Garaudy: Comment l’Homme: op cit.
[39] Ibid; p. 275.
[40] E. Williams: Capitalism and Slavery; (North Carolina; 1944).
[41] R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; p. 250.
[42] G. Le Bon: La Civilisation des Arabes, op cit; p. 293.
[43] Burton: Pilgrimage, I.p.89 in R.B. Smith: Mohammed; p. 251; note 1.
[44] See Elphinstone’s India; p. 320; 363; 370; in R.B. Smith: Mohammed: p. 251.
[45] G. Le Bon: La Civilisation des Arabes, op cit; p. 293.
[46] J.J. Dollinger; p. 32 in R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; p. 250.
[47] M. Esperonnier: Les Echanges commerciaux entre le Monde Musulman et les pays Slaves d’apres les sources Musulmanes medievales pp 17-27; Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale vol 23. p.26.
[48] J. Glubb: A Short History; op cit; p. 70.
[49] Ibid.
[50] G.E. Von Grunebaum: Medieval Islam, op cit; p.202.
[51] M. Esperonnier: Les Echanges commerciaux; op cit; p.26.
[52] P. Earle: Corsairs of Malta and Barbary; op cit; p.10.
[53] A. Thomson: Barbary; op cit; p.10
[54] Quoted by Perkins and Douglas Morris: Gunfire and Barbary; (Havant; 1982); p.37.
[55] In Revue Africaine; Vol 2 (1858); pp 337-52.
[56] See:
F. Braudel: Grammaire des Civilisations; (Flammarion, 1987); p. 89 fwd..
M.L. de Mas Latrie: Traites de paix; op cit.
[57] A. Thomson: Barbary; op cit; final Chapter: Towards Conquest.
[58] In G. Fisher: Barbary Legend; op cit; pp. 123-4
[59] Ibid.
[60] A. Mieli: La Science Arabe; op cit; p. 45.
[61] G. Fisher: Barbary Legend; op cit; L. Valensi: North Africa; op cit;
[62] G. Fisher: Barbary Legend; p. 24.
[63] Godechot; la Course Maltaise: Revue Africaine: 1952 in N. Barbour: A Survey; op cit; p. 38.
[64] See for instance:
L. Valensi: Le Maghreb avant la Prise d’Alger; (Paris; 1969).
J. Mathiex: Trafic et prix de l’Homme en Mediterranee au 17 et 18 Siecles; ANNALES: Economies, Societes, Civilisations: Vol 9: pp. 157-64.
F. Braudel: Civilisation materielle.; 15-18em siecle; Vol 3; (Paris; 1979).
[65] A. Hollingsworth Miller: One man’s view: William Shaler and Algiers; in Through Foreign Eyes; (ed A.A. Heggoy), op cit; pp. 7-55; at p. 18.
[66] C. Lloyd: English Corsairs on the Barbary Coast, op cit; pp. 163-4.
[67] N. Barbour: A Survey; op cit; p. 36.
[68] A Spedizion d’Arge; (Genoa; 1834).
[69] M. Jameelah: Islam and Orientalism; M.Y. Khan and Sons; (Lahore; 1990); pp. 49-50.
Reply

Independent
09-13-2012, 11:06 AM
Replying to Muhamad - actually the words you quote are all my own, for better or worse. If I quote from someone else I always declare it.

1.
That’s an extensive post. I guess you’re setting all this in the context of ‘Orientalism’, an attitude of the West to Islamic society as characterised by Said’s famous book of the same name which I read some years ago. Do I think that Europe had an objective, accurate view of the Islamic world over the last millennium? I most certainly do not. But that doesn’t mean it contains zero truth. And the notion that the Islamic world has a clear, balanced, well-informed view of the western world is equally improbable.

Fear of the Islamic military threat in Europe was certainly very real and has left a vivid scar in European consciousness (similar to the effect of the crusades in the Arab world and much more recent). Indisputably this military threat was not imagined and Europe escaped total Islamic conquest by the skin of its teeth (stopped at sea in the Battle of Lepanto, and on land at the gates of Vienna).

States at war always demonise their opponents. One aspect of this will be accusations of brutality, especially to women and children. (A propaganda war alongside the actual war, if you like.) However, I really don’t accept the views you have quoted, that this has been an essentially one-sided war (Europe about the Arabs, Turks etc). The idea that Islam has been fighting a ‘clean’ war throughout history, and the Christians a ‘dirty’ one, is wilful blindness. (eg you can’t selectively ‘remember’ the Crusader massacre in Jerusalem, and at the same time ‘forget’ the massacre of Antioch by Baibars).

On the other hand I wouldn’t disagree with some of the views expressed here – for instance, that slavery/piracy was partly used as an excuse by France to colonise North Africa. The Barbary slave trade was indeed in sharp decline anyway. Not because they had a sudden outburst of empathy with their slave victims, but because the corsairs had lost control of the sea.

The French invasions have to be seen in the context of the long, painfully slow collapse of the Ottoman Empire which gradually opened up a power vacuum across the whole region. (Obviously, the long term consequences of the French invasion have been disastrous.)

What was the dominant reason for it? Was it an ideological war on Islam? Or simple political hegemony? If anti-Islam was the dominant historical motive (in a continuity going back to the Crusades) then the French would never have fought on the Turkish/Ottoman side against Christian Russia in the Crimean War - just a few years after their invasion of North Africa. Nor would they have had their naval treaty with the Barbary states the century preceding.

In fact, most states have changed sides repeatedly. This was not a war of ideology, although ideology might be used at times if useful. Individual Christian states were frequently allied with the Ottomans, even though it might risk the Islamic invasion of all Europe (most notoriously, the Venetians cut deals with the Ottomans to protect their trade).

2.
Returning to the subject of slavery in particular – the notion (as you quote from Rodinson) that conversion to Islam was the defence of many Africans against slavery may well have some truth to it – but for a far more obvious reason than the one he suggests. Many of the relevant areas are enormously distant from the west coast of Africa. These slaves could not have been heading for the Americas - they were part of the Arab trade and they were destined for labour in north Africa, India etc. But as Islam prohibits enslaving Muslims, then conversion to Islam would offer absolute and final protection. The idea that Africans converted to Islam to save themselves from pagan African slave traders, who would then trade them to Islamic Arab traders - well, it's nothing short of bizarre. Faith in Islam would defend effectively against only one type of trader – the Islamic trader.

Overall, you have collected a series of very benign comments on the Arab slave trade. Taken in isolation, without describing the equally extensive dark side of the trade – in particular the sheer numbers involved - they are as grossly misleading as anything that has been said by Western writers. But I’ve already dealt with this in previous posts so I won’t go over the same ground.

In a wider context….whatever the historical associations of Islam and slavery in European eyes, views have shifted significantly in the last 100 years or so. Today it is the transatlantic slave trade that is by far the best remembered. The Barbary trade is familiar to people around the northern Mediterranean, who suffered most directly, but not very well known elsewhere. The far-larger sub-Saharan trade, and the trade out to Indian plantations etc, have minimal awareness in the west.

In other words, astonishingly, even in the West, it’s the Western slave trade that’s best remembered, not the Arab one. I don’t know where you live Muhammad, but if you did a survey in any northern European country, testing awareness of the Barbary trade versus the transatlantic trade, I can guarantee you which will win. Most people wouldn’t even know the word ‘Barbary’. If this is the end-result of non-stop, one-sided Western propaganda, then it has to be the least effective campaign in history.

On the other hand, from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, I also get the strong impression that Arabs today, even those who live in the same areas of North Africa, have no idea about the scale of the Arab trade (or they may dismiss it as another aspect of Islamophobia). Perhaps Edward Said can write us another book from the grave – and call it ‘Occidentalism’.

Once again, I stress that this is not in any way to diminish the evil history of the transatlantic trade.

3.
To summarise – how far does it progress things, to complain about the one-sided histories of Europeans with regard to Islam, and replace it with an equally one-sided account in the other direction. My point overall is - aren’t you committing the same error you complain of?
Reply

Muhammad
09-13-2012, 03:40 PM
Greetings Independent,

Thanks for reading my post and your reply to it. I did assume that your post I was quoting were your own words.

I'm going to respond to the key message in your post first:

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
3.
To summarise – how far does it progress things, to complain about the one-sided histories of Europeans with regard to Islam, and replace it with an equally one-sided account in the other direction. My point overall is - aren’t you committing the same error you complain of?
The point of the post was not to replace one biased account with another. It was to highlight the need of viewing things objectively and the need for filtering truth from lies. You claimed that the Barbary slave trade was a significant issue to this topic because (1) slaves were 'obviously...not acquired in the course of war', (2) because 'of terrible suffering by the slaves', (3) 'The total number of slaves acquired by Islamic states was very high' and (4) 'The trade continued for well over 1,000 years until advances in sailing by Western navies allowed gradually them to gain control'. All of these assumptions were presented as facts. The extract I posted demonstrates that another side of the story does exist and that a great deal of propaganda against Islam using these very 'facts' has been going on for centuries, hence the need to dig beneath the surface and not accept such 'facts' at face value. The only reference you provided was wikipedia, which is known not to be reliable for such topics. If the very foundation of your claims is in question, then we cannot proceed to making conclusions and casting aspersions on the subject of Islam and slavery on that basis. It is also worth noting that the author of the extract draws almost entirely on Western sources, hence it is not ‘an equally one-sided account in the other direction’.

States at war always demonise their opponents. One aspect of this will be accusations of brutality, especially to women and children. (A propaganda war alongside the actual war, if you like.) However, I really don’t accept the views you have quoted, that this has been an essentially one-sided war (Europe about the Arabs, Turks etc). The idea that Islam has been fighting a ‘clean’ war throughout history, and the Christians a ‘dirty’ one, is wilful blindness. (eg you can’t selectively ‘remember’ the Crusader massacre in Jerusalem, and at the same time ‘forget’ the massacre of Antioch by Baibars).
As above, the aim of the post is not to suggest that Muslims have never committed any crime at all. It is merely trying to put things into perspective. The author of the book himself states in the Preface, regarding the reasons for writing the book:

...Muslims and Islam have been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic attacks and polemics known in history, and the consequences have been dreadful... This book is written so as to begin a counter-demonizing campaign. This campaign does not involve using the same debased means as those Western polemicists use against Islam. This would be wrong, and Western society, despite its defects, is a society of great accomplishments and the vast majority of Westerners are decent people, just as good and as bad as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Chinese, Africans, and everybody else... This author is himself too aware of the evil many Muslims, who only bear the name of Muslim, are capable of, or inflict on others, for him to take a naive stand and speak of the holy and sinless nature of Muslims. The aim of this author is to counter the generalised rhetorical onslaught on his faith and community... The main focus of this work is on the issue of the depiction of the Muslims and their faith as barbarian/barbaric, Whilst much of the rhetoric daily portrays a barbaric side of Islam and Muslims, as this work shows in every chapter, reality completely contradicts this...


What was the dominant reason for it? Was it an ideological war on Islam? Or simple political hegemony? If anti-Islam was the dominant historical motive (in a continuity going back to the Crusades) then the French would never have fought on the Turkish/Ottoman side against Christian Russia in the Crimean War - just a few years after their invasion of North Africa. Nor would they have had their naval treaty with the Barbary states the century preceding.
It is difficult to say what exactly was the dominant reason. It is clear, however, that to achieve their aims, Islam and Muslims needed to be tarnished and hence we find that historical accounts are replete with Christian authorities spreading outright lies to justify invasions and genocide. In the above extract, a few of these have been provided as examples. The fact that the French have fought alongside the Ottomans does not necessarily rule out anti-Islamic motives, as many other strategical reasons can account for it. Some sources have called the alliance "the first non-ideological diplomatic alliance of its kind between a Christian and non-Christian empire", "the impious alliance", or "the sacrilegious union of the Lily and the Crescent". Other sources describe it differently.

In fact, most states have changed sides repeatedly. This was not a war of ideology, although ideology might be used at times if useful. Individual Christian states were frequently allied with the Ottomans, even though it might risk the Islamic invasion of all Europe (most notoriously, the Venetians cut deals with the Ottomans to protect their trade).
Risking the ‘Islamic invasion of all Europe’ was unlikely as the Ottomans were slowly declining (as you said), to the extent that the Empire received the name, ‘sick man of Europe’.

2.
Returning to the subject of slavery in particular – the notion (as you quote from Rodinson) that conversion to Islam was the defence of many Africans against slavery may well have some truth to it – but for a far more obvious reason than the one he suggests. Many of the relevant areas are enormously distant from the west coast of Africa. These slaves could not have been heading for the Americas - they were part of the Arab trade and they were destined for labour in north Africa, India etc. But as Islam prohibits enslaving Muslims, then conversion to Islam would offer absolute and final protection. The idea that Africans converted to Islam to save themselves from pagan African slave traders, who would then trade them to Islamic Arab traders - well, it's nothing short of bizarre. Faith in Islam would defend effectively against only one type of trader – the Islamic trader.
It is also very clear that Muslim treatment of slaves was crucially different to its Western counterpart, and many examples of slaves achieving high ranks and statuses in society were mentioned in the following paragraphs. Interestingly, ‘it is said that Christians from the Caucasus were glad to be carried off as slaves to Egypt because each one felt that he might rise to be sultan’ [46].


In other words, astonishingly, even in the West, it’s the Western slave trade that’s best remembered, not the Arab one. I don’t know where you live Muhammad, but if you did a survey in any northern European country, testing awareness of the Barbary trade versus the transatlantic trade, I can guarantee you which will win. Most people wouldn’t even know the word ‘Barbary’. If this is the end-result of non-stop, one-sided Western propaganda, then it has to be the least effective campaign in history.
I think one of the intended results of such campaigns were military actions like the French invasion that has preceded. But the lingering image and perpetuated nonsense about Muslims being threatening, barbaric and inferior remain till this day, even if specific historical accounts are not remembered. And undoubtedly it would be very easy for the same myths to be fed in great spoonfuls the moment one decides to study Muslim history from Western sources.

On the other hand, from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, I also get the strong impression that Arabs today, even those who live in the same areas of North Africa, have no idea about the scale of the Arab trade (or they may dismiss it as another aspect of Islamophobia).
Or perhaps it was nowhere near the scale that one is led to believe?

Regards.
Reply

Muhammad
09-13-2012, 04:33 PM
Greetings Laura,

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Does it bother anyone that the Quran endorses slavery at all? That Allah never forbid it outright? It's hard to explain what I mean, but today society has advanced and generally slavery is forbidden, but does that mean society's ideas have become more advanced than God because He never fobid slavery?
Please read this link: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...m-slavery.html

As a side note, how has society today advanced, and how would one judge that its ideas are more 'advanced' than the laws of God?
Reply

Independent
09-13-2012, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
It is also very clear that Muslim treatment of slaves was crucially different to its Western counterpart, and many examples of slaves achieving high ranks and statuses in society were mentioned in the following paragraphs. Interestingly, ‘it is said that Christians from the Caucasus were glad to be carried off as slaves to Egypt because each one felt that he might rise to be sultan’ [46].
Yes indeed, to the extent that by the 18th century perhaps 75% of the Crimean population were either slaves or freed slaves.

Perhaps you have heard of the career of Beshir Agha, a slave taken from East Africa who rose through the ranks at the Ottoman court to become one of the most powerful men in the Empire? He is certainly a splendid example of how slaves were treated differently in the Islamic world.

Of course, before he was able to benefit from this exceptional job opportunity, he was obliged to undergo castration.

But hey, if you're an ambitious guy, it has to be worth it doesn't it?
Reply

جوري
09-13-2012, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
it has to be worth it doesn't it?
I'd say rising to the ranks in a ruling court is better than being castrated to sing sporano in an opera...

best,
Reply

Aprender
09-13-2012, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
In other words, astonishingly, even in the West, it’s the Western slave trade that’s best remembered, not the Arab one. I don’t know where you live Muhammad, but if you did a survey in any northern European country, testing awareness of the Barbary trade versus the transatlantic trade, I can guarantee you which will win. Most people wouldn’t even know the word ‘Barbary’. If this is the end-result of non-stop, one-sided Western propaganda, then it has to be the least effective campaign in history.
So in other words, you're upset because you think that in the West not many people know about the Barbary slave trade and you think that's wrong. First of all, let me tell you that it's not always referred to as the Barbary slave trade but instead the Arab slave trade. Similarly, you think that Muslims try to sweep it under the rug as if it didn't happen but that's not true. There are demographics you are completely ignoring. There are many good things even in Islamic history that Muslims aren't aware of and even children today in the West have no idea what the Ottoman Empire is but that doesn't mean that it's all "swept under the rug" so to speak.

I'm not sure how it goes for privileged Americans in the racial majority or in European countries, but for those of us who are racial minorities in America, slavery in all its contexts was something that was very well documented and talked about within the Black historical context. Even slavery with the Arabs. The issue with slavery in these terms is that the way I learned about it in black history was that it was no different from the way slaves were treated in the West. Yes, the Barbary slave trade was brought up and that was the only thing that was talked about. It painted Arabs as this evil, barbaric other that saw themselves as superior to Africans as well. We were taught that their main goal in this was only to create a bunch of harems and kill all the men off. But more examples of the awful treatment of slaves still came from Western slavery. Both events created this idea that "everyone" disliked the African man and sought to oppress him.

And out of this you got some groups like the Nation of Islam and groups of African people who consider themselves the original Israelites, the original "chosen people" that history's elite chose to wash away. I had a bus driver who was a part of the latter group.

It wasn't until I studied Islam that I learned about the way slaves were treated in early Islamic history, long before the Barbary slave trade, and the rules set in place for it through Islamic Law. This is something that is greatly ignored in the historical context of slavery in the Muslim world and even more so here in the West. Even now, many black Americans are completely unaware that many of the slaves brought to America were Muslims and more literate than their slave owners here--only that they were more literate in terms of writing, reading and speaking in Arabic and not English. Consequently, many of these Muslim slaves had their children sold away from them and their Islamic heritage was lost in some generations and replaced with Christianity. Many don't realize that the religion of all the slaves was not pagan voodoo that Christian churches in Bible Belt like to teach and how slavery was good for them because it "saved them from those heathen practices".

Still, Islam in America survived in part because of this discovery of the Islamic heritage that slaves had in studying the African ancestry and learning some slaves were descendants of Muslim sultans and kings in African lands. It brought a resurgence of African American reverts to Islam especially during the Civil Rights movement up until today. And if you look into Chicano/Latin American studies you will see similarities only that now many Latin Americans are entering into Islam after discovering their ancestry with the Moors and the similarities between family values in Latino culture and Islam. Many Latin Americans are finding that Islam is a solution to many of the problems that we face in the community.

You are right that there are accounts of slaves being treated unjustly by Muslim slave owners in the Barbary slave trade. But what would you like us to do? Jump into a time machine and punish them for not following Islamic law? I'm well aware that mistreatment happened and so are many other racial minorities in America who are non-Muslims. Again, I say racial minority because many people in the majority tend not to look at this history as it's not pertinent to their ancestry which is quite a shame. As a matter of fact, the dialogue surrounding this is still very negative in that many black Americans believe that Arabs hate Africans/black people and see them only as slaves even in modern times. And in the Latino community some even see Arabs as barbaric because they're incorrectly taught here in the West that Arabs invaded Spain and established Al Andalus and tried to forcibly replace the Spanish culture and convert everyone from Catholicism. Many black Americans even believe that the Taliban shot down the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because the nose on it was "too African" while totally ignoring the fact the Islam forbids idol worship.

Just like Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear through the grapevine, just because it suits their world view--not because it is actually true or they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases...but people prefer reassurance to research."

That goes for all people. Muslim or not. When looking at things historically, it's important to look at it from more than one perspective or you end up making erroneous conclusions. Anthropologists have done this for centuries about indigenous peoples and we need to remove ourselves from those biases for the sake of objectivity and historical accuracy.
Reply

LauraS
09-13-2012, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings Laura,



Please read this link: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...m-slavery.html
Thank you for the link. I accept that Islam teaches slaves should be treated with kindness and many were freed (I have read it elsewhere in the past too), but again it makes out it was only Europeans and Americans that look slaves via raids whilst Muslim slaves were only prisoners of war. That was what annoyed me to begin with on this thread.

Also there were groups of Christians that opposed slavery, the Evangelical Wilberforce being the driving force ( :S ) behind the abolition in the British Empire. Plus that post almost makes out the abolition of slavery didn't occur until 1953. ^o) I don't think there was many European slave owners in the 20th century.

I'm actually reading a book about Christian Quakers at the moment and they used similar arguments, about the rights of slavery, to those being used on this forum, that they are not allowed to mistreat their slaves and must free them after a number of years. Again though, regardless of how the slaves are treated, it comes down to the arrogance of believing you have the right to take a person from their home and control their lives because you, through your skin colour of beliefs, are somehow superior.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
As a side note, how has society today advanced, and how would one judge that its ideas are more 'advanced' than the laws of God?
Again it's hard to get across what I mean, but for example there are those in Christianity who believe gay people should be allowed as Bishops etc when the Bible teaches gay people should be stoned. On the whole western society now accpets homosexual people and don't find the homosexuality evil, so what do these Christians think? That God has "modernised" along with society? The same thing with Islam, Allah accepted slavery hundreds of years ago, but today even the non-brutal form of slavery discussed in the Quran is considered unacceptable (I assume), but there has been no message from Allah that slavery is now completely forbidden. There are no updated laws if you know what I mean. Surely a society in which no human is allowed to take slaves becuase everyone is free to control their own lives is more advanced than a society that allows slavery.
Reply

Abz2000
09-13-2012, 10:01 PM
You say Islamic slavery was different from those that shipped slaves off the America but that's not true. Muslims used to raid non-Muslim areas and round up people to sell in the same way other groups did. These people were sold by Muslims slave merchants for profit, not for protection or anything of the sort. Do you think the girls were happy with their new life shipped to foreign lands and sold to men who had the "right" to sleep with them?
The Islamic system is very different from the western system in many aspects Laura,
One thing which strikes as quite obvious is the fact that the western system is racist.
The Muslims had Arab white, Arab black, non Arab white and non Arab black slaves whom they would refer to as 'abd".
In contrast, the westerners called their slaves "nigguhs" and regarded them as sub-human and these "nigguhs" definitely weren't pale faced.

When he Muslims took land from Rome or Persia or any other despot, all who accepted Islam in any land that it ruled over were seen as brothers and they were exempt from paying taxes - only the 2.5% zakat was payable.
In contrast, when westerners took any land they would take anything of any value as spoils to the country of the king who took it over and taxed everyone in those lands - those kings even taxed their own people lol (though they spent on them. The others just had to deliver the tax every harvest because they were "foreigners".

Finally, slavery still exists in the west.
Those whom the governments take as prisoners are made to work long hours for little or no money, and when I say little, I mean enough to buy cigarettes, they are given free food and shelter of course.
But the Muslim's slaves were able to marry, work for others and buy their freedom or be ransomed, some became scholars, some army generals. One of the most famous scholars of Islam (an-nafi) was a slave, who related some of the most important authentic sayings of the prophet pbuh, imam ahmad ibn hanbal's chains usually go through nafi'.
Some were also memorisers of Quran and were given the battle standard out of respect,
One slave famously said: I am the worst carrier of Quran if I let the standard fall.

And the most famous slave in Islam was bilal (may God be pleased with him)
At whose call everyone would leave their businesses and fields and rush to prayer.
When he climbed onto the ka'bah to call to prayer after the conquest of Mecca, one pagan said: praised be "god" who caused x (my father) to die before he witnessed this day (when a black slave would dare to stand on the roof of the ka'bah.

Lol when al"q"da wanted to call Obama a house nig***, they had to use the term "abd al bait" (slave of the home) because they cant translate the term "nig***" into Arabic in that context coz such a racist term doesn't exist in the language.
Reply

Scimitar
09-13-2012, 10:14 PM
Bottom line - If Allah had never commanded in the Quran to give slaves their rights, then the world would still be trading in slaves today. We set the example by which the world followed - albeit, a full millenia later (USA).

The Prophet pbuh always maintained that to buy a slaves freedom was an act of sadaqah. And he advised anyone who was able - to buy the freedom of slaves.

As for modern slavery, this whole RIBA system is slavery, and it's much more worrying problem "traditional" slavery...

But that, is a whole new thread.

Scimi
Reply

Scimitar
09-13-2012, 10:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
As a side note, how has society today advanced, and how would one judge that its ideas are more 'advanced' than the laws of God?
If advancing means in the fields of technology and the sciences - i'd say by quite a span - but nowhere near the laws the HE set.... and if we are talking about the human condition, and being able to champion it in order to be a better human being in the sight of the creator - then I'd say we're pretty much failing in that regard too. And the reason being - we didn't take heed from the book, neither did we try to emulate the nature of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Same with the Christians, who claim that "Jesus is LOVE" but when you talk with them, they got nothing but hatred in their eyes (not all Christians, just the zealots - we have them too in Islam).

What is missing then? A balance... a balance between humanity and wisdom. The uniting crux point is knowledge. And the reason why we are failing is because "knowledge" is being abused - in order to further certain agendas.

When this happens, your own humanity is curbed, and the wisdom is forever elusive. Because Wisdom can be found in the practical application of knowledge - whereas - experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted.

Knowing how to recognise the two, is wholly dependant on your own spiritual progress. Some easily mistaken wisdom for experience, when clearly that is not the same thing.

So to go back to the question - can anything be more advanced than the Laws of God Almighty? I highly doubt it, because the more I aim to get closer to HIM, the clearer things seem to become. And my focus is multiplied. So is my will. So is my determination to be worthy for HIM. And that is where the ultimate benefit is. In Understanding what True Wisdom is, even if it is unattainable in this life.

Scimi
Reply

Independent
09-13-2012, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
So in other words, you're upset because you think that in the West not many people know about the Barbary slave trade and you think that's wrong
Well no, it doesn’t upset me, I’m just pointing it out as surprising and a little remarkable. Naturally you would expect countries to favour their best bits.

This isn’t strictly relevant and it doesn’t make a point either way, but have you ever come across the history of Harry Washington, one of George Washington’s slaves? His life to me symbolises the wild swings of fortune that can happen in history. He ran away to fight for the British in the War of Independence – was evacuated to Novia Scotia along with other black soldiers after the British defeat – then joined the first settlement of returning slaves to Sierra Leone in Africa – and finished up leading a revolt against the colonial authorities there.

What a life. Deserves a film script.
Reply

Independent
09-13-2012, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I'd say rising to the ranks in a ruling court is better than being castrated to sing sporano in an opera...
Ouch. What a choice.
Reply

Scimitar
09-13-2012, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What a life. Deserves a film script.
truth is stranger than fiction, so blessed be the strangers :)

Scimi
Reply

Muhammad
09-13-2012, 11:05 PM
Greetings Laura,

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Thank you for the link. I accept that Islam teaches slaves should be treated with kindness and many were freed (I have read it elsewhere in the past too), but again it makes out it was only Europeans and Americans that look slaves via raids whilst Muslim slaves were only prisoners of war. That was what annoyed me to begin with on this thread.
There has to be a distinction between the teachings of Islam and the actions of certain Muslims. I believe the primary purpose of this thread was to ask about the concept of slavery in Islam, so that is what the posts were focusing on: the guidelines given in Islam. You chose to highlight specific instances where Islamic teachings may not have been upheld, but then that is a different issue and we cannot blame Islam or God but rather those followers who chose to disregard Islamic teachings. In the initial post you responded to, I cannot find the implication that it was only European and Americans that took slaves via raids. Perhaps the main point being made thhough, was that taking slaves by means of kidnapping and raids (and other means) was a prevalent practice before the time of Islam and continued to be the main source of slaves for a long time afterwards in places such as Europe and America, such that when the word ‘slavery’ is used, these negative connotations spring to mind and people mistakenly believe that is what Islam allows. However, Islam from the outset blocked many ways of enslaving people and created many new ways of liberating them. Some Muslims may not have adhered to this during the course of history, but that is not the focus here.

I'm actually reading a book about Christian Quakers at the moment and they used similar arguments, about the rights of slavery, to those being used on this forum, that they are not allowed to mistreat their slaves and must free them after a number of years. Again though, regardless of how the slaves are treated, it comes down to the arrogance of believing you have the right to take a person from their home and control their lives because you, through your skin colour of beliefs, are somehow superior.
I don’t know which article or post made you think this, because it is completely wrong. Arrogance and racism are completely irrelevant here, and nobody suggested that Islam allows us to enslave anyone and everyone. Rather Islam permitted slaves who resulted from war captives and existing slaves. From the link I gave:

Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.
...The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227)...

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.

It also says in the post immediately above your first one in this thread:


The Messenger of Allah (saws) declared it a sin to kidnap any free man, woman or child and make them slaves. After the wars, the Prophet (saws) used to exchange the Prisoners of War if both the warring parties agreed to it. If not, the captives were set free by taking a ransom for them. If the slaves or their families could not afford the ransom, most times the Prophet (saws) showed generosity and released them without any ransom. Only if none of the above were possible, and the captives had no place to return to, then these captives were made slaves and all efforts were taken to inculcate them into the existing Islamic Society.
The same thing with Islam, Allah accepted slavery hundreds of years ago, but today even the non-brutal form of slavery discussed in the Quran is considered unacceptable (I assume), but there has been no message from Allah that slavery is now completely forbidden. There are no updated laws if you know what I mean.
To the best of my knowledge, slavery is still permitted in Islam provided the conditions are fulfilled, but I think we will be hard pressed to find examples of where this is currently the case. Note that it was only ever the ‘non-brutal’ form of slavery that was acceptable in Islam, and the ample evidences, details and examples of that have already been listed elsewhere.

'Finally, Allah allowed us to enslave the captives, but encouraged us to free them. So if the different countries of the world sign treaties by which they exchange the captives during the time of war, we would be the first to sign such a treaty that will be a double win for us. On one side, we will reclaim our own people, and on the other side we will free the captives, as we are encouraged by God and His Messenger.'
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ves-islam.html
Surely a society in which no human is allowed to take slaves becuase everyone is free to control their own lives is more advanced than a society that allows slavery.
Again, nobody can take a slave in any way they wish. It is only limited circumstances that can lead to slavery. And as the link I gave says, ‘Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.’ Now if we look at the society we live in today, we find many instances of free individuals having their houses raided, being beaten and then detained for years on end without any evidence or real reason to do so. Many of these have suffered immensely in prison, some of them raped and humiliated in the worst ways imaginable... how does any of this compare with the rights and privileges Islam affords people taken as slaves? Is such a society still so advanced just because it claims it abolished ‘slavery’?


It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).
Reply

Independent
09-14-2012, 10:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
Bottom line - If Allah had never commanded in the Quran to give slaves their rights, then the world would still be trading in slaves today. We set the example by which the world followed - albeit, a full millenia later (USA).
If you say that the introduction of Islamic law reduced slavery in the Arabian peninsula, as well as improving the lot of existing slaves, I wouldn’t disagree.

But to claim this was the key event in the eventual abolition of slavery is not credible. The slave trade continued longer in more islamic countries than any others, and on the whole was abolished only as a result of outside pressure. Here are some key dates for Islamic states, 'a full millennium later' as you say:

1846: Under British pressure the Bey Tunia outlawed the slave trade; the policy was reversed by his successor
1847: Under British pressure the Ottoman Empire abolishes slave trade from Africa.
1848: Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade
1849: Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade
1882: Ottoman firman abolishes all forms of slavery, white or black.
1922: Morocco abolishes slavery
1923: Afghanistan abolishes slavery
1924: Iraq abolishes slavery
1928: Iran abolishes slavery
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003)
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970: Oman abolishes slavery
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery

Taking the Ottoman Empire, where abolition occurred in 1847, even this didn’t finish the trade. For example in 1860, state authorities regulated slave prices at 3,000 coins for each woman slave (Toledano, 1994:54, Toledano, Ehud R. (1994).

It’s very common on this forum to be asked for Islamic writers, like the above, as references - to the extent that absolutely anything any western commentator says is automatically distrusted. But if Islamic writers don’t choose to cover a subject, this makes it difficult.

For example, contemporary Ottoman historians of the Ottoman Empire scarcely mention slavery. They preferred to celebrate the spectacular military success of Suleiman the Magnificient etc. You can find descriptions of the thriving Istanbul slave market in writers like Evliya Celebi, (‘Seyahatname’ – Book of Travels) but he’s the exception rather than the rule. In 1670 he describes how the Istanbul slave warehouse was used to control the slave trade as a source of revenue to the State, with about 2000 slave traders listed as taxpayers.

So for a wider perspective I am obliged to quote western sources:

‘In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire.’ He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside. Lewis, Bernard (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press.

‘Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse.’ Manning, Patrick (1990). Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades. Cambridge University Press

So to summarise: the new Islamic restrictions had the effect of permitting slavery to continue within Islamic borders, and – even worse – made it necessary for new slave supplies to be obtained from outside (ie by conquest or slave raiding).
Reply

Independent
09-14-2012, 11:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
(Toledano, 1994:54, Toledano, Ehud R. (1994).
Apologies, this guy is not Islamic
Reply

Aprender
09-14-2012, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
There is a problem with this argument and I advise you to check your sources. The United Arab Emirates didn't become a sovereign nation until 1971. And back then the UAE was one of the poorest regions in the world--especially after the pearl trade went south from all of the counterfeits that flooded the market. So by what you just posted above, the UAE was so advanced that they abolished slavery before they even became a country.
Reply

Independent
09-15-2012, 09:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
The United Arab Emirates didn't become a sovereign nation until 1971.
Wasn't it called the Trucial States or something at the time? Whatever – in a long list of states that could be much longer, it makes no difference to the argument. What I ask you to consider is, when you look at the extended legislation record, which event seems to have triggered world abolition? The dissemination of the Qur'an in the 7th century, 13 hundred years previously? Or William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act of 1807, just before it all started? (Together with the direct action taken by British naval forces to inhibit the trade eg the West Africa Squadron.)

This seems difficult to believe to me, but from what i read here, for a faithful Muslim even that abolition legislation is wrong. If slavery has a place in Islamic law, albeit highly regulated and limited, then any legislation that attempts an absolute prohibition is therefore un-Islamic. Please tell me, is that the case? I would never have believed it before reading this forum, but it seems to be the case.

Surely we would all wish to see slavery abolished 100%, in every aspect, even the limited slavery that appears to be endorsed by Islamic law? I genuinely don't understand this.

(Please don’t say, as others have earlier, that those rules were made for 7th century conditions, so we should read them in context. The rules have to be consistent for all time.)
Reply

جوري
09-16-2012, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Does it all matter, is it ‘just’ history? Well, the Crusades are ‘just’ history and I hear plenty enough about them. A selective Islamic approach to history is the mirror image of Orientalism and two wrongs do not make a right. Quoting from Salahudeen's response earlier:
I wanted to comment on this portion alone which I find prevalent in many scenarios here on the forum (and even if the forum maintains some air of civility it is certainly more rampant than ever outside and is appears to be the least evil but is equally so) I don't know if it were you or perhaps another person I should go check the SN who took my words twisted them so that Zionism is akin to Judaism and interchanged; followed by the statement or else calling all Muslims terrorists etc. etc.
Do you find this kind of exchange productive or truthful? in other words we have to be on equal footing into an exchange for some sort of diplomatic end result? appeasement or political correctitude? Shouldn't the role of truth & justice be the uppermost and not simply to make all ideologies equal even if they're frankly faulty? You've to fine comb through everything to find a source whether true or not to instill what is wrong into the fray to ignite it?
Why is that? I really would like to understand because I am a firm believer that at the end of the day:

Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)[21:18]

[RECITE]
[top] [next match]



Bal naqthifu bialhaqqi AAala albatili fayadmaghuhu faitha huwa zahiqun walakumu alwaylu mimma tasifoona
21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)

and as we say in Arabic La yohiq illa al'haq- wa tamyeez al'mostahaq
لا يحق الا الحق والتميز المستحق
It isn't called bias and those other words that are used to mislead are innovated for the sake of semantics and not for the sake of truth. Yes many westerners want to sweep under the rug their transgressions, whether eradicating entire populations, unleashing unnecessary wars, invading nations, racial slurs, clear abuses of human rights and to modern day, complete lack of regard to their historical mishaps with terms like (we hear about it enough) well where do you hear about it because frankly all I see is Islam under the microscope and every little thing whether or not is actually a favorable or comparable to be demeaned, mocked, trivialized, marginalized and where simple passive transmission should take place evolves into active creation of what the mass mind should perceive.


best,
Reply

جوري
09-17-2012, 03:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What alarms me is that even in moderate Islamic opinion
What in your mind is a 'moderate' or 'extremist' as we don't have such stratifications to have a clue where you're coming from!
Reply

Aprender
09-19-2012, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Now of course I realise that the notion of a coherent, international conspiracy against Muslims is regarded as established fact by many Muslims. Many? Most? All? You tell me. I can see that there are as many versions of it as there are grains of sand. But the basic picture is clear enough.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t agree that this conspiracy exists. There are so many, many reasons why I don’t believe this.
Why would you believe it? You're on the outside looking in. It's different once you switch sides and walk in the shoes of another person. You're not a Muslim and therefore there are many things about Islam that you most likely don't understand. I first noticed the issue when I was studying Islam as a non-Muslim. It began with reading news articles about Muslims. They were written in a way that that caused the reader to infer negative things about Muslims. I kept reading, and reading, and reading and each time any news outlet covered anything about Muslims, the conclusions that I drew from there were negative at first but as I learned more about Islamic teachings, I noticed a high amount of factual errors and generalizations being made in news articles about Muslims. One of the major ones is the idea that the word "jihad" is constantly translated as holy war when that's not really the best way to define the concept.

I don't know what it is, but I've noticed that you and a few other members on this message board have this idea of "If I didn't see it, if I didn't notice it, if I didn't witness it, then it is not happening and there is nothing there to it. It's all imagined." One of the reasons why I loved being a journalist was so I could talk to people and get to see the world through another point of view. I got the opportunity to speak to a lot of Latino immigrants in the community in covering U.S.-Mexico border issues and I learned about some awful things that happen to men and women while their crossing over into the U.S. that the media doesn't usually cover.

Drug cartels often kidnap women and sell them into sex slavery or rape them, men are sometimes attacked and murdered, bodies decapitated and left in mass graves. While I haven't been in those areas to see these things happen, I don't dismiss them as not true simply because I wasn't around it enough to see it happen. And there is a problem here in the U.S. against Latino immigrants because many people believe that they cause crime rates to rise, that they're all illegal, that they're all illiterate, and their children are called "anchor babies". People make fun of them calling them derogatory terms. The battles each one of us fights is different and I think it's wrong for you to dismiss the struggles of others just because you "fail to see that happening" from your outside point of view. It's not happening to you.

With that said, I don't think that the systematic discrimination against Muslims around the world is a conspiracy theory as you call it. If that were the case, states in the U.S. wouldn't be pushing anti-shariah laws that have no basis. Americans wouldn't be holding anti-Shariah law protests as a result of the misinformation that people put out there about it. These lawmakers shouldn't have to be here speaking out against it.



Op-Ed pieces like this one wouldn't have to appear in newspapers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/us-muslims-are-not-measured-by-the-exemplary-work-of-its-mainstream/2012/09/19/ef651132-0277-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

Documentaries like this one wouldn't have to be produced to discuss the overwhelming negative attitude that many have against Muslims and Islamic teachings:


Mosques in the U.S. shouldn't have to have extra security measures put in place because some crazy people take it too far and want to burn the mosque down or shout obscenities at people.


Don't dismiss the problems of other human beings just because it's not affecting you directly at the moment. Other non-Muslims see it too.
Reply

Independent
09-19-2012, 10:37 PM
Hi Aprender, didn’t think anyone but me and Muhammad was left in this thread.

‘I've noticed that you and a few other members on this message board have this idea of "If I didn't see it, if I didn't notice it, if I didn't witness it, then it is not happening and there is nothing there to it.”

Is that fair? I said I’ve learned lots of things here – especially about Islam which, as I said, is far more different than I expected. Give me a chance, I’ve only been on this site a couple of weeks.

I’m very happy to see you posting guys like Neal Ferguson and Robert Fisk, rather than the Webster Tarpleys of this world.

I do agree with you that Muslims in the US and other countries are currently the victim of widespread discrimination and prejudice in a variety of ways, and so are the Mexican immigrants for that matter.



What I don’t agree with, is that this is part of a massive, coherent, international conspiracy going back decades or perhaps even to the Crusades.



As it happens, in this case ‘not noticing it’ is part of the problem with the idea. That’s because it’s extremely difficult to achieve such a conspiracy across so many countries, in so many eras, without developing a huge trail of evidence. I mean direct evidence of active, self-conscious conspiracy, not just the acts of discrimination themselves. (You don’t need to have a conspiracy to discriminate against someone.)



Where is the equivalent of the Wannsee Conference for Muslims? In fact, we will need scores of such conferences to account for a 1,000 year campaign.



How could these shadowy leaders manage to wage this war against Muslims, without the vast majority of ordinary citizens ever knowing? And for that matter, why bother? Just because they don’t like Muslims? Is that it?



Although you don’t want to believe this of me, I do think I can respond to reasonable evidence and I’ve joined this site because I hope to find it concentrated here, whereas it would be hard work sifting it from western reporting.



However, I’m not going to be persuaded by any old lunatic fringe material which I would reject in any other context. To be fair, I don’t recall you posting anything that I would place in that category.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!