PDA

View Full Version : Slave Girls



Truth_Seeker
12-11-2005, 03:37 PM
:sl:

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ansar Al-'Adl
12-11-2005, 08:06 PM
:sl:
Please read the following where your question has been answered:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

Also, see here:
Does Islam allow Slavery?


Question: I am a Captain in the Pakistan army and would like to know if can we have sexual relations with the women we are able to capture in wars? I have heard that in one of the wars during the time of the Prophet (sws), the whole Muslim army raped slave women offered to them provided that they practiced ‘Azal (coitus interruptus).
Answer: Well I am afraid you cannot do so. Since the question you have raised is an important one. I’ll give you a detailed answer:
In my opinion, among many other misconceptions about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery and permits its followers to enslave prisoners of war, particularly women and establish extra-marital relations with them. Islam, I must strongly affirm, has not the slightest link with slavery and concubinage. On the contrary, it completely forbids these practices. It is quite outrageous to associate such barbarities with a religion revealed to upgrade humanity.
The point which needs to be appreciated and which, perhaps, is the real cause of the misconception is that Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. It must be kept in mind that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Islamic Arab society. There were scores of slave men and women in almost every house. This was largely due to two reasons: First, during those times, the standard practice of dispensing with prisoners of war was to distribute them among the army who captured them. Second, there were extensive slave markets in Arabia in that period where free as well as men and women of all ages were sold like animals.
In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in the economy of Pakistan today. No one can refute Pakistan’s national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
To avert a similar disaster and to ward off a similar catastrophe, Islam had adopted a progressive and a gradual scheme, fourteen hundred years ago, to do away with the inhuman institution of slavery. Following are some of the measures it took in this regard:
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of ‘abd (slave-man) and amah (slave-woman) by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
As far as the war you have referred to, let me correct you on your information.
In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Madinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions (rta). Since at that time, the prohibition of slavery was passing through the interim period when it was still intact for reasons stated earlier, the Prophet (sws) accepted the right of masters to have sexual intercourse with the slave women as was the international law at that time but set about taking steps that could prevent this from actually happening. Let me explain the most important measure he adopted:
Among the prisoners of this battle was Sayyidah Jawayriyyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawayriyyah also accepted faith. The Prophet (sws) proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnized. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.
So actually no such instance of sexual intercourse with the slave women took place. It is totally wrong that they were raped. Also today as far as prisoners of was are concerned, they cannot be taken to be slaves and sexually benefited from. After the abolition of slavery that took place in the time of the Prophet (sws) as described above, no one dare maltreat a p.o.w. let alone sexually harass them. (SOURCE)
I hope this helps.
:w:
Reply

Imam786
12-11-2005, 11:59 PM
interesting i always wondered about that....i kinda thought it to be adultry ......but now i guess i have 2nd thoughts..
Reply

Truth_Seeker
12-12-2005, 12:58 AM
Ok, i've heard this kind of answer before
But you do agree there are differences of opinions here between scholars
It says if the women becomes pregnant through intercourse, marry her. In the article you gave me it makes islam sound amazing, but why in the first place should someone be having intercourse with a woman if he's already married or even not married. I've asked a qualified student of islam if slavery will be allowed maybe in the futre, and he said it might come back again as a custom permitted by islam. So why is there more than one opinion? It sounds as if the article you have chosen is the one that makes most sense to you and the one you want to sound right, you're picking and choosing answers

For example go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=5707&dgn=4
If you read it says here "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies" This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master

Read this link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4
It says here the Prophet SAW also had slaves as did companions including ppl Like Umer and Ali RA
Also if it was allowed then then surely it is allowed now, you can't say it was only meant for that time period, because the Qur'an is also meant for all times. Now you might argue that it was a progressive plan to gradually eradicate slavery,like the forbidding of alcohol which was gradual. But the difference is Allah never forbid slavery and nor did the Prophet, wheras after a certain period alcohol was gradually not allowed. Now, if true jihad started again, and female captives were taken, would their masters be allowed to have sex with them, even if they already have wives. because according to some schoalrs it is perfectly permissable if you read my links. Also go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...e&CR=362&dgn=4 and read all the questions, and you will see the problem i am having difficult to understand about women slavery
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
Tasneem
12-12-2005, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
:sl:

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

:w:
:sl:

I used to have a BIG problem with this.
My mom told me because the master takes care of them such as clothing and feeding them.
The slave still has rights such as the slave cannot smack nor hit her in the face.
It was alittle confusing to me too.
Especially because i am a girl and i always thought that rape was....well,illegal but not if the slave owner takes care of her,etc.

SaLaMz
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-12-2005, 01:42 AM
:sl: Truth Seeker,
For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
Ok, i've heard this kind of answer before
But you do agree there are differences of opinions here between scholars
Difference of opinion on what exactly?
It says if the women becomes pregnant through intercourse, marry her. In the article you gave me it makes islam sound amazing, but why in the first place should someone be having intercourse with a woman if he's already married or even not married.
If you read the article properly you would see quite clearly that Islam was never recommending or commanding men to have intercourse with their female slaves! This was already a widely spread practice that went hand-in-hand with slavery, as was the custom of the time. Islam put steps in place to remove the institution of slavery.
I've asked a qualified student of islam if slavery will be allowed maybe in the futre, and he said it might come back again as a custom permitted by islam.
What does your 'qualified-student-of-islam's' mere opinion have to do with this? Slavery will most ikely not come back once it is in decline because Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people and has encourged the freeing of slaves.
So why is there more than one opinion? It sounds as if the article you have chosen is the one that makes most sense to you and the one you want to sound right, you're picking and choosing answers
If the article sounds good, what's stopping you from accepting it? :confused:

For example go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=5707&dgn=4
If you read it says here "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies" This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master
Did you understand the quote you read? It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well.

Read this link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4
It says here the Prophet SAW also had slaves as did companions including ppl Like Umer and Ali RA
It was the custom of that time, but did you read how many slaves they freed?

I'll get to the remainder of your comments soon inshaa'Allah.
:w:
Reply

Truth_Seeker
12-12-2005, 03:38 PM
For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.
I am sincerely seeking the truth and want the best most honest answer. I have heard different verdicts on slavery, without being provided with any wisdom behind it. I've heard a scholar say that slavery could return one day if jihad was to happen again, and if it left a lot of female captives, they could be taken as slaves for themselves as booty again.

Difference of opinion on what exactly?
Sorry, wasn't very clear here. I meant difference of opinion between scholars regarding slavery. some say it is a practice that is allowed in islam because we are by nature sexual, while others say that islam forbids it. surely there should only be one answer, and both can't be right. Now, scholars who suggest slavery is allowed and having sex with them is allowed, now why would they lie. I'm more inclined to believing people who say the contrary and say islam forbids it, i feel they are trying to cover it up, because they themselves don't accept it or understand it. From what i see, slavery is allowed in islam, as is stated in this article http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=13737&dgn=4 and in this one http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4. What i want to know is why it is allowed, since it is inhumane.

If you read the article properly you would see quite clearly that Islam was never recommending or commanding men to have intercourse with their female slaves!
yes but it does say keep yourself chaste apart from people such as your wives or slaves, thus allowing it

What does your 'qualified-student-of-islam's' mere opinion have to do with this? Slavery will most ikely not come back once it is in decline because Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people and has encourged the freeing of slaves.
If jihad returned, and there were loads of female captives of war, what would be done? Wouldn't they be distributed among the army as this is what was done during the prophet's SAW time, and his life is an example to us so we can't rteally think we know better and do something contrary to it. If female slaves were distributed then surely it would be allowed to have sex with them. i am not denying that islam encourages freeing of alves, but Allah SWT or the Porphet SAW never forbid it, they allowed it

Did you understand the quote you read? It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well.
Read it again, it says "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies". Now here is what i understand from this quote. A slave becomes preganat by her master, has a child, then when the master dies she is then free. It does not say that when a woman becomes pregnant by their master they then become automatically free

It was the custom of that time, but did you read how many slaves they freed?
Precisely what i don't understand. Ok even if it was the custom at the time, why couldn't the noble pious companions refrain from having extra marital relationships with them, even through an "interim period". if today in this society filled with invitation to zinna, why couldn't in that society people stop

I'll get to the remainder of your comments soon inshaa'Allah
I'll be waiting inshallah
Reply

Halima
12-12-2005, 06:59 PM
:sl: After reading this thread, it has occured to me how much we have to read how the Prophet Muhammed (saw) viewed slaves. Not based on your opinons, no based on anyone elses, but most importantly based on the Prophet Muhammed's view.


The Prophet (peace be upon him) was particularly kind to slaves. He used to say, "They are your brothers; give them to eat what you eat; give them to wear what you wear." Whenever he received any slaves, he always gave them freedom but they could never free themselves from his kindness and generosity. They left their parents, relatives and family and regarded it as an honour to live in bondage to him. Zaid bin Hartha was a slave. Muhammed (peace be upon him) freed him and gave him the choice to go with his father, who had come to take him, but he refused to go with his father and preferred to stay. Muhammed (peace be upon him) loved Usama, the son of Zaid, so much that he used to say that if he had been a girl, he would have put jewellery on her.

Slaves felt humiliated at being called slaves. He advised his companions not to say "my slave" or "my slave-girl" but to say, "my son" or "my daughter". He also told the slaves not to call their masters "lord" for God alone was the Lord. He was so kind to slaves that his last bequest before he died was, "Fear God in the matter of slaves."

Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the converts and Muhammed (peace be upon him) praised him for his honesty. Once he abused a non-Arab slave, who complained to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) about this. He reprimanded Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) and said, "You are still ignorant; these slaves are your brothers. God has given you power over them; if they are not suited to your temperament, sell them. Don't harm God's creatures. Give them to eat what you eat; give them to wear what you wear. Don't give them so much work that they cannot do it all. If you give them a lot of work, then give them a hand to finish that work."

Once Abu Masud Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) was beating his slave when he heard a voice behind him say, "Abu Masud! God has more power and control over you than you have over this slave." Abu Masud turned and saw it was God's Messenger (peace be upon him). He said, "O God's Messenger (peace be upon him)! I free this slave for the pleasure of God."

Muhammed (peace be upon him) replied, "If you had not done so, the fire of Hell would have touched you."

People arranged the marriages of slaves but forcibly separated them whenever they wished. One man arranged the marriage of his slave to his slave-girl and then wanted to separate them. The slave complained to God's Messenger (peace be upon him), who stood up in the Mosque and addressed the people, "Why do people marry slaves and then separate them? The right of marriage and divorce belongs only to the husband and wife." The effect of this kindness was that many slaves of the polytheists used to run away and come to him. He used to grant them freedom. When the spoils of war were distributed, slaves were given their due share. The newly freed slaves received their shares first for they did not have any capital.


:w:






Reply

Daoud
12-12-2005, 11:32 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl: Truth Seeker,
For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.

:w:
leaving aside your repugnant and insulting arrogance and patronising attitude towards a genuine search for understanding to me this begs the question: we are constantly told that the Qu'ran is literally true word for word and applies to all times and all places yet here it is being acknowledged that some aspects are culture and time specific and have no relevance to the situation as it currently is in the modern world.

It makes no sense to claim that the Qu'ran, the Holy word and law of Allah, was a) a response to the cultural and legal situation of the time and b) is universally applicable in all its aspects in all times and places.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-13-2005, 03:11 AM
:sl: Truth Seeker,
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
I am sincerely seeking the truth and want the best most honest answer. I have heard different verdicts on slavery, without being provided with any wisdom behind it. I've heard a scholar say that slavery could return one day if jihad was to happen again, and if it left a lot of female captives, they could be taken as slaves for themselves as booty again.
Discussing slavery is best described by Shaykh Salman Al-'Awdah in his book, Drowning in minor details, as follows:
How many people talk about the issue of slavery and the legal rulings that are associated with it, like the minimum dress a slave girl must wear? Sometimes these discussions can get very drawn out. Where are the slave girls and where is slavery in the world today? These things are nonexistent today. If slavery does exist somewhere in the world then it is an extremely rare thing. So then, why busy ourselves with such a topic?
Inshaa'Allah, I intend to demonstrate that Islam was not instituting an oppresive system with regard to slavery, but was rapidly eradicating an oppresive system that was already in place. Moiz Amjad writes:
Firstly, the fact that Islam considered the institution of slavery a social vice is the obvious corollary of the various directives of Islam regarding freeing of slaves. Had Islam not considered slavery to be a social vice, there was no reason to promote freeing of slaves as a great virtue.

Secondly, the words 'Islam accepted slavery as a social vice' clearly imply that even though Islam considered slavery to be a vice against humanity, yet due to its deep roots in the world society, at the time, and due to the extra-ordinary social implications that could have followed any drastic measures of the complete and immediate abolition of the institution, Islam tolerated its existence till the time that the world was emotionally and psychologically prepared for its abolition. During this intermediary time, it was equally essential for the Prophet (pbuh) to promote the moral value of treating one's slaves with respect, honor, love and justice.

...It should be remembered that the correction of all such social vices that are as deeply rooted in a society as was slavery in the world of old, clearly need a two faceted approach in their correction. Firstly, the society should be psychologically, emotionally and physically prepared to relieve itself of such vices - which can sometimes translate into a long-term corrective process. Secondly, during this intermediary time, the society should also be taught to deal with the prevalent situation in the best possible manner.
Likewise, Hischam Khan writes:
We must remain conscious of the fact that the Qur'an was revealed in an environment in which slavery was accepted as a normal social custom. This custom was around for so long that everybody accepted it. Had you and I been living there at the time, we too would have seen nothing wrong with it. Therefore, it should be cleared up at the outset that the Qur'an neither created this practice nor encouraged it in any way, shape or form. It only accepted that this has been deeply rooted in that society and would not be eradicated easily. So, a simple demand to free all slaves was unrealistic. Besides, the slaves; many of which were elderly poor people, had nowhere to go and would therefore probably end up becoming beggars and only further the burden upon society. As such, a gradual approach had to be taken for the eradication of this vice. Please remember that the steps toward this taken by the Qur'an would have been seen as abnormal to the people of the time, as keeping slaves feels to you and I. It should be recognized that slavery was a social phenomenon of an international nature, Islam could not have completely abolished slavery, while the world culture remained the same.

...Considering all of this, I really cannot see how the Qur'an displays a "disturbing concept" in regards to slaves. Actually, I reckon that the Qur'an provided the best groundwork toward the actual abolition of slavery itself. Had the Qur'an decided to declare slavery forbidden immediately rather than gradually removing it while giving a set of rules for their better treatment in the mean time, then it would have caused various problems on different levels. In the world at the time, there were such a huge number of slaves that releasing them would have left them without food, money, jobs and care. Many of them were already very vulnerable and would therefore never have been able to cope with such a thing. The societies would never have been able to provide for them all and they may as a result have turned to illegal means to earn a living (e.g. brothels may have been opened etc). Thus, there was wisdom behind the decision to abolish slavery gradually rather than immediately.

You write:
"Secondly, where Quran mentions the prohibition of illegal sexual intercourse, the only exceptions are with a person's wife or SLAVES/ CAPTIVES that their right hand possesses."

Having explained what the social customs were at the time, it should be understood that sexual intercourse with one's slave was considered part of the norm. The slaves too saw nothing wrong in this. In fact, before the advent of Islam the slaves were considered no more than their master's possessions and therefore absolutely anything could be done with them. In other words, they could even take their slaves' lives when and as they pleased. Islam removed such vices and raised them to the position of fellow humans with similar rights. However, as long as slavery was not completely removed, having sexual relations remained part of the master-slave relationship.

Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage).

Had slavery been abolished on the spot it would have caused chaos in the society and the world at large. It just was not possible. However, the Prophet (p) changed their status and tried to get his people into treating them as fellow members of the family. For this reason, a “master-slave” relationship turned into more of a Father-son, or husband-wife relationship.

The “slaves” were to be fed with the same food as that of the master, clothed with the same clothes (yes, same clothes!), and not asked to do more than they could handle. Nay, the master was even told to assist the slave if the slave was found to be having any difficulties. They were not to refer to them as “slaves” anymore. These are your brothers and sisters, it was declared. Yet further, they were not allowed to hit their slaves. If these slaves objected to their position and desired to be freed, then if the potential and ability to live and cope independently was seen in them, they should be helped toward being freed. Accordingly, what Islam envisaged and wanted to produce, was a treatment of “slaves” that was absolutely free of cruelty and harm. Actually, keeping such things in mind probably renders this undeserving of the term “slavery”.
And in the link I gave you to IslamOnline, they wrote:
The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.

Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess” also has another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”

All this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages.

All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet (pbuh) made this clear in his hadith that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He said:

“Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”

As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet, as saying:

“If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”

You see; that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. They should definitely be well treated. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogative names of “slaves” or “servants”. For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed by “fatah” (boy) or “fatat” (girl). Besides, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.
As for your comments..
Sorry, wasn't very clear here. I meant difference of opinion between scholars regarding slavery. some say it is a practice that is allowed in islam because we are by nature sexual, while others say that islam forbids it. surely there should only be one answer, and both can't be right. Now, scholars who suggest slavery is allowed and having sex with them is allowed, now why would they lie. I'm more inclined to believing people who say the contrary and say islam forbids it, i feel they are trying to cover it up, because they themselves don't accept it or understand it. From what i see, slavery is allowed in islam, as is stated in this article http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=13737&dgn=4 and in this one http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4. What i want to know is why it is allowed, since it is inhumane.
As mentioned before, slavery wasn't prohibited by Islam, but steps were put in place to see that the practice was eradicated. The scholars you have quoted like Shaykh Munajjid, etc. all agree with this, so what is the issue here? Sister Halima very kindly posted the ahadith on slavery for us, all of which make it clear that Islam has placed a massive amount of pressure in the direction of freeing slaves.

The only issue where slavery arises again is with regard to prisoners of war. One must remember that prisoners of war were NEVER distributed amongst the soldiers as slaves. When prisoners of war were taken in, they FIRST WENT TO THE ISLAMIC STATE. It was the Islamic government that took care of the prisoners of war and was responsible for ensuring their well-being. Naturally, back then, the Islamic government did not possess the resources or the necessary instituions to take care of so many prisoners of war. Hence, whomever could be exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war or ransom money was exchanged (Ibn Hisham). They were also set free for teaching others how to read or write. But if the Muslims simply set all the prisoners of war free, many of them would have no one to take care of them and would be unable to return safely to their homes. And it would be illogical to return them to the enemy forces again, where both men and women could contribute to battle preparations against the Muslims. The Islamic state needed to take of the prisoners of war somehow. The custom of that time was to have them all sold off into slavery. What the Islamic government did was it assigned them to different Muslim families to look after, and the only way to ensure that the relationship was secure, other than marriage, was to secure them as bondsmen/bondswomen. But this was not the typical master-slave relationship that you might envision. On the contrary, as demonstrated by some of the evidence quoted earlier, the 'slaves' were to be treated with kindness and compassion as mentioned in an authentic hadith in Sunan At-Tirmidhi. And in Sunan Ibn Majah it mentions that one who treats those under his/her authority badly will not enter paradise.

So the important point to note here is that the soldiers were never allowed to simply capture prisoners of war and turn them into slaves. The prisoners of war were taken by the Islamic government and they assigned them to families that would be able to take care of them properly.

What about today? I think this is your main question. The answer is very clear. In the past, the only reason why the prisoners of war were assigned to families as slaves was because there was no other way to look after them. Today however, in the event of a military jihad (which is only lawful under an Islamic state) it is most likely that we would have the resources and institutions to take care of prisoners of war without having to give them as slaves. So the answer is that slavery is indeed a practice of the past (thanks to Islamic directives which aided in its abolishment). Today we have resources and instituions that would mean that we would not have to go down that route.

I find it strange that you call it 'inhumane' when the Islamic rulings were the most revolutionary in bringing humane treatment to slaves. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said "If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward. " (Bukhari).

These kind of statements were unheard of in that era.

If jihad returned, and there were loads of female captives of war, what would be done?
See above. They would become the responsibility of the Islamic state which would shelter, clothe and feed them, since today we have those resources and institutions.
Wouldn't they be distributed among the army as this is what was done during the prophet's SAW time
1. They were NOT distributed during the time of the Prophet saws. They were first taken by the Islamic state and then assigned to those capable of taking care of them.
2. This was only done because the Muslim state did not possess the resources or instutions to shelter and support hundreds to thousands of prisoners of war. Today, we do have these resources and institutions, hence we do not need to use slavery.

Please also read about the treatment of prisoners of war in Islam here:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/sh...sub_cat_id=491

Read it again, it says "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies". Now here is what i understand from this quote. A slave becomes preganat by her master, has a child, then when the master dies she is then free. It does not say that when a woman becomes pregnant by their master they then become automatically free
This is what you originally said:
This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master
Clearly you're changing your statement now. To clarify:
-If a slave-girl gives birth to her master's son, the son is NOT a slave, and when the master dies the girl is free as well.

Precisely what i don't understand. Ok even if it was the custom at the time, why couldn't the noble pious companions refrain from having extra marital relationships with them, even through an "interim period". if today in this society filled with invitation to zinna, why couldn't in that society people stop
I think the quotes I gave at the beginning demonstrate why it wasn't possible to remove slavery in a single step.

:w:

:sl: Daoud,
leaving aside your repugnant and insulting arrogance
Which part was repugnant and/or insulting?
and patronising attitude towards a genuine search for understanding
How do you know which search is genuine or not?

we are constantly told that the Qu'ran is literally true word for word and applies to all times and all places yet here it is being acknowledged that some aspects are culture and time specific and have no relevance to the situation as it currently is in the modern world.

It makes no sense to claim that the Qu'ran, the Holy word and law of Allah, was a) a response to the cultural and legal situation of the time and b) is universally applicable in all its aspects in all times and places.
Can you show me what is the conflict between saying that the Qur'an is universal and that it focused on removing degrading cultural practices at the same time? Is the abolishment of slavery not universal? And what about when the Qur'an forbids the burying of baby girls? What is your response to that? Clearly, that is only a Qur'anic directive which responds to an oppressive cultural practice, yet the wisdom behind it and the principles of justice which it carries is certainly timeless.

:w:


... one last thing. Lest anyone think that slavery is completely alien to Judaism and Christianity, let us examine what their sources say on the topic.

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (RSV)

Famous 18th Century Bible Commentator, Reverend Matthew Henry, writes:
That he (i.e. Israelite) should not serve as a bond-servant (v. 39), nor be sold with the sale of a bondman (v. 42); that is, "it must not be looked upon that his master that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure, as much as a man’s cattle; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant, whom the master has the use of only, but not a despotic power over.

...That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. Thus in our English plantations the negroes only are used as slaves; how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say… Let me only add here that, though they are not forbidden to rule their bondmen with rigour, yet the Jewish doctors say, "It is the property of mercy, and way of wisdom, that a man should be compassionate, and not make his yoke heavy upon any servant that he has. (SOURCE)
And another verse:
Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

Reverend Henry:
Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15. (SOURCE)
This one is particularly disturbing:
Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (NLT)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (NLT)

These quotes allow us to appreciate the revolution which Islam brought about with respect to removing slavery.
:w:
Reply

Truth_Seeker
12-13-2005, 10:45 AM
:sl:
Jazakallah Khair Br. Ansar, this is defintely the best article i have read so far regarding this topic, it's clarified a lot of things now alhumdulillah
I totally undestand and love the way islam gradually abolished slavery, nothin else could have been done, i see that, since it was a custom at the time and was so deep rooted, so thus it couldn't be ablosihed immediately. But i still don't understand the extra marital relations part, where they were still allowed to have sex with them. Why couldn't it have been that, while slaves were distributed by the goverment like you said, clothed and fed like you've said , but instead at the same time why wasn't there a ruling saying you can't have sex with slaves. Ok i see that they were together everyday, and slaves could have been pretty etc, but the masters could have done jihad and strived to avoid giving in to their lusts, it could have been a test from Allah. Alhumdulillah, may Allah reard you for the posts you've done, but i don't object to slavery the way islam had it, i think it was fanstastic that the were treated as Brothers and sisters, the only part i have not understood all this time is the part about being able to have sex, this is the part i was referring to as being inhumane, since a female captive has no choice but to oblige to the command of her master, and if he wanted sex she'd have to provide

Clearly you're changing your statement now. To clarify:
-If a slave-girl gives birth to her master's son, the son is NOT a slave, and when the master dies the girl is free as well.
Ok i might have been unclear again, i apologise. My argument was, and still is, that not all scholars agree on the issue of slavery. Some say it was allowed etc. My argument was that i didn't want to pick and choose answers that sound most attractive, i rather wanted the truth. To illustrate this i was referring to the article from islamonline, and a different answer i read on islam-qa
Here is what it says on islamonline "Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom."
Now here is what it says on islam-qa "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".
As you can see, one says you become free when you become pregnant a woman would automatically gain her freedom, while the other one says when she becomes pregnant she would be free when the master dies
From this i think scholars are divided on this issue, some give answers that are pleasing to people like me, like the one on islamonline, while others seem more truthful and say have a concubine is perfectly allowed due to the law of Ibrahim AS as on http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10382
Surely in this kind of matter all scholars should have to come to the same opinion and conclusion, that slavery was for that time and it won't happen again. For example on islam-qa, when someone has asked is it permissable to have sex with slaves, they don't say "no, it was a matter for that time because slavery was around, and now it's finished". Rather they say it's allowed and they given references from Qur'an and hadith

I think the quotes I gave at the beginning demonstrate why it wasn't possible to remove slavery in a single step.
again, i'm not saying remove slavery, i'm saying remove practice of being allowed to have sex with them

Finally, i don't understand why at the end you've decided to say it's allowed in judaism and christianity, why the random attack? Ok, if a christian had come and cricticised slavery in islam and had said christianity on the other hand is better, then fair enough i would have fully expected you to have posted what you have. But i think the end of your post was quite unneccessary

Also, i like our reply to Br. Daoud, but i disgaree a bit.
Islam says burying girls alive is bad, this clearly stands for all times
But with slavery it never said it was bad, it never said in the futre after a certain time it will be disallowed. It doesn't say put slaves in your houses if there are no institutions that take care of slaves. The verse was meant for all times surely
Now you might say it's all about context, for example it says "Kill disbelievers wherever you see them", now this is in context to a war, as in other verses it says there is no compulsion in religion. But with regards to having sex with slaves, it never said don't do it. The message was universal
:w:
Reply

MetSudaisTwice
12-13-2005, 10:56 AM
salam
so what is the difference between slaves and house maids? what if you treat a house maid as equally as if though they are your family or part of your family? is this allowed?
is having house maids allowed?
wasalam
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-13-2005, 08:42 PM
:sl: Truth Seeker,
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
But i still don't understand the extra marital relations part, where they were still allowed to have sex with them. Why couldn't it have been that, while slaves were distributed by the goverment like you said, clothed and fed like you've said , but instead at the same time why wasn't there a ruling saying you can't have sex with slaves. Ok i see that they were together everyday, and slaves could have been pretty etc, but the masters could have done jihad and strived to avoid giving in to their lusts, it could have been a test from Allah. Alhumdulillah, may Allah reard you for the posts you've done, but i don't object to slavery the way islam had it, i think it was fanstastic that the were treated as Brothers and sisters, the only part i have not understood all this time is the part about being able to have sex, this is the part i was referring to as being inhumane, since a female captive has no choice but to oblige to the command of her master, and if he wanted sex she'd have to provide
You must understand the strict rules Islam has placed with respect to relations between opposite genders. A female servant would be in the house all the time and in close proximity to the 'master'. Hence, it would not have been appropriate to leave this as it is, for undoubtedly there would have been problems that might arise. Just as Islam made relations within marriage permissable, it was necessary that these relations be made permissable as well in order to protect the society from corruption. These relations were considered no different from husband-wife relations, and just as Islam commands men to treat their women with kindness, likewise it says the same concerning treatment of female servants. So why are you asking about the female servant being forced to have relations and not the wife? Because most people understand that in a husband-wife relationship there is understanding and good treatment. Well, the same applies to a relationship with a female servant.

Ok i might have been unclear again, i apologise. My argument was, and still is, that not all scholars agree on the issue of slavery. Some say it was allowed etc.
Everyone says it was allowed.
My argument was that i didn't want to pick and choose answers that sound most attractive, i rather wanted the truth. To illustrate this i was referring to the article from islamonline, and a different answer i read on islam-qa
Here is what it says on islamonline "Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom."
Now here is what it says on islam-qa "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".
As you can see, one says you become free when you become pregnant a woman would automatically gain her freedom, while the other one says when she becomes pregnant she would be free when the master dies
No, you misunderstood the Islamonline article. It is saying the same thing; that the woman becomes free after the master dies, but even during that period she cannot be given to anyone else as a slave.

This is what the IslamToday.com fatwa committe writes:
Slavery is a way for the Muslim state to deal with war captives. From the outset, it falls under the jurisdiction of the state to apply or abandon this policy at its sole discretion and in an official capacity in consideration of the general welfare.

A soldier cannot just take a slave for himself. He cannot take advantage of female captives. That would be rape. The government of the Muslim state must decide what to do with the war captives. The first priority of the Muslim state would usually be to trade those captives for Muslim prisoners of war held by the enemy. The state also has the option to free the captives. If the state deems that it is not in public interests to do so, it may entrust the captives to individuals.

A slave thereafter belongs to his master. He may not share her with others sexually. If he has a slave girl and she becomes pregnant and gives birth to his child, then the child is free and legitimate and she is promoted to the status of a child's mother. She cannot be sold and will be totally free when her master dies.
Again, this site agrees with both IslamOnline and Islamqa in this matter.
From this i think scholars are divided on this issue, some give answers that are pleasing to people like me, like the one on islamonline, while others seem more truthful and say have a concubine is perfectly allowed due to the law of Ibrahim AS as on http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10382
Both sites agree that Islam allowed it and both sites agree that steps were taken to remove it. Where is the disagreement?

For example on islam-qa, when someone has asked is it permissable to have sex with slaves, they don't say "no, it was a matter for that time because slavery was around, and now it's finished". Rather they say it's allowed and they given references from Qur'an and hadith
If someone already has a slave that is a different matter. They are encouraged to free the slaves, and in fact if they treat the slave poorly the expiation is to free them.

Finally, i don't understand why at the end you've decided to say it's allowed in judaism and christianity, why the random attack? Ok, if a christian had come and cricticised slavery in islam and had said christianity on the other hand is better, then fair enough i would have fully expected you to have posted what you have. But i think the end of your post was quite unneccessary
No, I don't think it was unnecessary. People often attack Islam on this issue and let Christianity and Judaism go free when in reality Islam was the one preaching freedom and kindness. Most of the attacks on Islam and slavery are distortions that come from Christian missionaries so it is only fair to expose their hypocrisy. Direct the criticism to where it belongs.

Also, i like our reply to Br. Daoud, but i disgaree a bit.
Islam says burying girls alive is bad, this clearly stands for all times
But with slavery it never said it was bad, it never said in the futre after a certain time it will be disallowed. It doesn't say put slaves in your houses if there are no institutions that take care of slaves. The verse was meant for all times surely
Please go back and read what I wrote in context. He complained that how can we say Islam's rulings on slavery were specific for a certain time period, while Islam is universal at the same time. The answer is that Islam's ruling on burying girls was also a response to an oppressive cultural practice that doesn't really occur today, but the condemnation is universal. So Islam's response to burying girls is universal and Islam's response to slavery is universal. The two responses don't have to be identical, for indeed they were not. Islam responded to burying baby girls by prohibiting it immediately, but since that wasn't possible with regard to slaves, it respoded by putting steps in place for its removal. Both responses were universal and timeless while responding to a specific oppressive practice at the same time.

Now you asked, "Why couldn't Islam prohibit relations with slave girls but still put steps in place to remove slavery". The two things could not coexist. If there were slave-girls in the service of their masters, it would not have been possible to prohibit relations between them when they were always in close proximity. Instead, Islam ensured that the treatment of slaves was improved and placed an immense amount of pressure to remove slavery altogether, which I have already demonstrated.

:w:
Reply

Truth_Seeker
12-13-2005, 09:45 PM
Jazakallah Khair bro, mashallah a very good reply, may Allah always reward you
I'd give you rep points but i think it's already full!
i got other questions i'll be posting soon inshallah that i'm sure you can also help clarify in
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-13-2005, 09:47 PM
:sl:
I'm glad you found my response useful. :) May Allah swt bless you in seeking truth.

:w:
Reply

Daoud
12-14-2005, 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl;127799
Can you show me what is the conflict between saying that the Qur'an is universal and that it focused on removing degrading cultural practices at the same time? [b
Is the abolishment of slavery not universal?[/b] And what about when the Qur'an forbids the burying of baby girls? What is your response to that? Clearly, that is only a Qur'anic directive which responds to an oppressive cultural practice, yet the wisdom behind it and the principles of justice which it carries is certainly timeless.

:
the point being that your explanation for the Qu'ran not abolishing slavery outright was that it was not possible to do it at that time and that place and that locates the revelation in a specific culture and shows it being adapted to suit a certain situation that obtained and that does not now.


I'm not in a position to judge your explanation (although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?) but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.

and likewise if you want to call not burying female babies alive 'timeless wisdom' well I don't think anyone could argue with that but I don't see the point of your argument: it was very clearly a culturally specific practice- I don't personally feel the need to be warned against it so the point is how do we distinguish what the application of this 'timeless wisdom' on this and other matters is to be in the present time?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-14-2005, 01:34 AM
Originally Posted by Daoud
the point being that your explanation for the Qu'ran not abolishing slavery outright was that it was not possible to do it at that time and that place and that locates the revelation in a specific culture and shows it being adapted to suit a certain situation that obtained and that does not now.
I already answered this. The fact that the Qur'an responds to an oppressive cultural practice by setting steps for its removal does not contradict our saying that it is universal. I challenged you before to show me the contradiction between those two sayings.

I'm not in a position to judge your explanation
Then don't. Why speak on a topic you are ignorant of? That is the greatest problem with the Muslim ummah today: lack of education.
(although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?)
This was already explained above. Read my previous post where I explained why it wouldn't have been practical to prohibit slavery instantly.

but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.
I'm going to say what I've already said, which is adequate. And that is that the Qur'an took steps to eradicate slavery.

and likewise if you want to call not burying female babies alive 'timeless wisdom' well I don't think anyone could argue with that but I don't see the point of your argument
The point of my argument is that there are a number of specific cultural practices that the Qur'an responded to, slavery being only one of them.
it was very clearly a culturally specific practice- I don't personally feel the need to be warned against it so the point is how do we distinguish what the application of this 'timeless wisdom' on this and other matters is to be in the present time?
We don't. Islam has already been very clear on the limits and laws, please go back and read my posts so that you understand the issue being discussed.
Reply

Chuck
12-14-2005, 09:31 PM
I'm not in a position to judge your explanation (although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?) but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.
Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.
Reply

Bittersteel
01-02-2006, 01:25 PM
“Ma Malakat Aimanukum” is one of the most misunderstood, misused and abused term of the Quran. It is usually taken as to mean “female slave”. Before we discuss the correct meaning of this term, it must be borne in mind that there is a specific word in Arabic language for female slaves and this word has been used at least twice in the Quran, once as a singular [“amatun” which is used in 2:221] and secondly as a plural [“imaaun”, which is used in 24:32].

“Ma Malakat Aimanukum” literally has the following meanings:

-What your right hands possess

-What you rightfully have

-What you [already] have

-What is rightfully yours

Now “what your right hands possess”, or “what you rightfully have” or “what is rightfully yours” or “what your [already] have” could be any of the following:

-Your wife

-Your spouse

-Your servant

-Your possession, or property

-Your slave [both male or female] because “Ma Malakat Aimanukum” refers to a neutral gender which is applicable to both male or female.

-Your prisoner of war

Now let us explore each key word in the term “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, a little further.

The word “Malakat” has the root meem-laam-kaaf [M-L-K]. It primary signification is:

-To possess or own [something or someone], particularly with ability to have it to oneself exclusively

Other meanings include:

-To have power to command or exercise authority

-To acquire

-To take over

-To Marry

As can be seen that one of the meanings is “to marry”. This is according to one of the most authentic dictionaries of Arabic language [Lisan-ul-Arab by Ibn-Manzoor Vol. 13, page 184]. Another authentic dictionary of Modern Arabic also describes this meaning [The Hans Wehrs Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, page 1081].

According to Lisan-ul-Arab, al-milaak means

-Marriage

-The bond of holy matrimony

According to the same dictionary, milaakun also means

-Wife

The word “milkun” which has plural “amlaak” means:

-Possessions

-Lands

-Fortune

-Wealth

-Real estate

-Property

The word “mulkun” means:

-Sovereignty

-Kingship

-Possession

-Right of possession [what is rightfully yours]

In the term “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, the word MALAKAT is in the PAST tense, which signifies “What you ALREADY have”, or “what you ALREADY possess” or “what CAME in your possession”. The word, grammatically, cannot be taken as to mean “what you WILL possess” or “what you WILL have”. The future or present tense form of this word is altogether different and has been used in various verses of Quran [5:17, 5:76, 10:31, 13:16, 16:76, 17:56, 19:87, 20:89, 25:3, 29:7, 34:22, 34:42, 35:13, 39:43, 43:86, 82:19]

Now let us see the word “Aimanukum”.

The word “Aimanun” is the plural of “Yaminun” and means “Right hands”. The root of this word is ya-meem-noon [Y-M-N].

The word “Yaminun” also means:

-A covenant

-An oath

The word “Yumnun”, has the same root Y-M-N and means:

-Prosperity

-Good luck

-Good fortune

-Good omen

-Auspiciousness

Now think of “Marriage” which is also a covenant [as described in Quran] and an event of auspiciousness, then see the suitability of the use of word “Aimanun” in context of marriage, as well.

From the above it can be seen that “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, may not only refer to “slave” [which could be both male or female] but also to:

-Spouse

-Wife

-Servants

-Prisoners of war

-Subordinates

-What is rightfully yours

Before we move further, another important word [which is used as conjunction] must also be explained. The word is “AW”, used in the phrase “aw ma malakat aymanukum”. “AW” is usually translated as “OR”. There is no doubt that “OR” is one of the meanings of “AW” but as a matter of fact, this word is used in no less than 12 different ways [also explained in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon]. One of the uses of this word is TAFSEEL, [i.e. elaborative or explanatory]. In other words, “aw” is also used to add some meaning to the previous word or to explain a previous word or to give some attribute or characteristics of the previous word.

Please refer to 17:110. In this verse, there is a phrase “odAAoo Allaha awi odAAoo alrrahmana”. Note carefully how “Allah” and “Rahman” are separated by the word “aw”. Now here “aw” does not imply that “Allah” and “Rahman” are two different Beings. Without doubt, “Allah” and “Rahman” is one and the same Being. “Rahman” is an attribute of “Allah”.

Now refer to verses 23:6 and 70:30.

23:6 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena

70:30 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena

In both the above verses, “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are separated by “aw”. Here it does not mean that “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are two different objects. Actually, they refer to one and the same object. “azwajihim” ARE “ma malakat aymanuhum” i.e. “their spouses” are “what they rightfully possess”.

In 4:24, the term “ma malakat aymanukum” refers to those married women which are wives of the disbelievers [as explained in 60:10]. The verse 4:24 makes unlawful to marry all married women except those married women that have come to the believers as prisoners of wars or emigrants but their husbands are non-believers. [After becoming of these women believers, Quran renders their previous marriage to the unbelievers, null]

In 4:3, the term “ma malakat aymanukum” means “what you rightfully possess” or “what you [already] have”.

In 33:52, the Prophet is forbidden to marry any more women in spite of their beauty except to MARRY only the slave girls or prisoners of war referred in 60:10, to make them part of the family and give them status.
Taken from here.

please feel free to contribute.
Reply

Snowflake
01-03-2006, 05:34 PM
My apologies and with no disrespect to any of the posters, but due to not being well, I was unable to read all the posts as they were really long and I cannot focus long enough. But I am seriously confused about the topic going. I have been listening to Quran recitation all day and coincidentally this very topic was mentioned. The translation is in urdu and as far as I understood, it says in the Quran that a man may have an intimate relationship with his servant and his wife/wives? The word used was mubasharat. Is this correct?
Putting it bluntly so as to avoid confusion does it mean that he can have intercourse with her without being married to her, cuz she is owned by him? And I glimpsed in brother Ansars post ( I think, forgive if I'm mixed up) that this is to avoid corruption in society? Can you plz elaborate on this as it's really not making sense to me :(


P.S sorry to have given you extra work to do :-[
Reply

Truth_Seeker
01-05-2006, 02:47 PM
Aa
I know i said i finally had finbished with this topic, but i've been giving this some thought recently and questions popped up again.
You must understand the strict rules Islam has placed with respect to relations between opposite genders. A female servant would be in the house all the time and in close proximity to the 'master'. Hence, it would not have been appropriate to leave this as it is, for undoubtedly there would have been problems that might arise. Just as Islam made relations within marriage permissable, it was necessary that these relations be made permissable as well in order to protect the society from corruption. These relations were considered no different from husband-wife relations, and just as Islam commands men to treat their women with kindness, likewise it says the same concerning treatment of female servants. So why are you asking about the female servant being forced to have relations and not the wife? Because most people understand that in a husband-wife relationship there is understanding and good treatment. Well, the same applies to a relationship with a female servant.
It's just so hard to understand, it would have been much easier if islam dealt with slavery the way it did, but disalloewed the sexual relationshiops part
I mean in countries like bangladesh india pakistan people have servants who are usually woman and in those cases men can't have sex with them even when they are around, so why is this a different case just because they have been won from war. A woman has no choice, she won't want a starnger to have sex with her, who would, she doesn't want to be his slave. I'm sure she would prefer to be alone and homeless than be posessed by a man who at his command can have sex at any time with her. This is against her human rights and freedom
I know you say it was a custom at the time and islam gradually abolished it........but in other cases such as alcohol, temporary marriage, gambling etc all these things gradually become disallowed in either the Qur'an or hadith, buyt slavery never becomes disallowed, in fact in the qur'an it enjoins having relationships with slave girls. I mean Quran never enjoined or said "do gambling, have alcohol" etc, it permits it as it doesn't say don't don't it, until later on when the command came its become haraam for you. Now with slavery it actually says having relationship with your slave girls etc and never hinted that in the futre it won't be allowed
Ok so when i asked before what would happen if jihad happened today, what would happen with captives of war, wou said there would be institutions built etc. Firstly having given this some thought, why wasn't something sim ilar built at the time. Secondly if such a situation arose aren't we meant to follow the example of Prophet Muhammed, the "living Quran" who when this happened distributed the slave girls amongst companions etc. If you are saying that it was wrong, or it would be wrong to do that practice today then you're saying the prophets example is not fit for today, since this is what the prophet SAW did. I mean Allah or the prophet nowhere commanded slavery to be abolioshed, it was always permitted. Why didn't the prophet say in a hadeeth that after distributing slaves, that its the utmost importance for the state to free these slaves with adequate provisions as soon as possible, ok it said that if you free a slave you get reward, but that won't necessary encourage everyone to free slaves.

Slavery is a way for the Muslim state to deal with war captives. From the outset, it falls under the jurisdiction of the state to apply or abandon this policy at its sole discretion and in an official capacity in consideration of the general welfare.

What is this above judgment based on, if the Prophet SAW had ordered or encouraged freeing of slaves as a high importance then fair enough, but nowhere is it strongly encouraged, if it had been said it is the duty of the ummah to free slaves as soon as possible then that would have happened but it didn't

Let's take today for example, this day and age. A war happens, there are captives left over. According to the sunnah of the Prophet SAW and the caliphs RA they are distributed among the companions. No hint of a institution of some kind was mentioned. Slavery was never abbrogated like other things. I mean temp marriage was allowed during jihad in the early days while islam wasn't firmly rooted in the heaerts of the believers, but none can say today yes temp marriage is allowed because thats what happened during prophet SAW's day, as the prophet disallowed it later. Now tell me where did the prohet say don't let slavery happen in futre. We are supposedly meant to follow him in every way, every aspect of his life was indirect revelation so the question comes up again why was it allowed to have extra marital relationships with slave girls. If a war happened today and captives were taken, i gurantee a lot of scholars would say follow the Prophet SAW example. How wouyld women of this day and age feel who have been taken captive, and been allowed to be used by their masters as free sex. The woman of today wouldn't be too happy, so how's that make the woman of those days ok with this happening. You're saying a slave girl is like a wife, but a wife has the wight to choose who she marries and has sex with, a slave girl doesn't. A wife can choose eductaion of child where a slave girl probably won't be able to. Trhe rights are quite different.
Now you say and admit its a wrongful practice, but your argument is it was a custom at the time and islam gradually got rid of it, right?
Well how is it the Prophet himself practiced it, as did prophet Abraham, PBUT. I mean it was common for people to drink alcohol in pro[phets time but he didn't, yet he himself had slave girls
Reply

MetSudaisTwice
01-05-2006, 02:52 PM
salam
i come from bangladesh, and i myself have seen female house maids, and all of those that i have seen were treated with respect and were treated as if they are family which shows that everyone is equal
wasalam
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-05-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
Aa
I know i said i finally had finbished with this topic, but i've been giving this some thought recently and questions popped up again.
:w:
They seem like the same questions to me, so forgive me if I use the same answers.

It's just so hard to understand, it would have been much easier if islam dealt with slavery the way it did, but disalloewed the sexual relationshiops part
I already answered this:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
You must understand the strict rules Islam has placed with respect to relations between opposite genders. A female servant would be in the house all the time and in close proximity to the 'master'. Hence, it would not have been appropriate to leave this as it is, for undoubtedly there would have been problems that might arise. Just as Islam made relations within marriage permissable, it was necessary that these relations be made permissable as well in order to protect the society from corruption. These relations were considered no different from husband-wife relations, and just as Islam commands men to treat their women with kindness, likewise it says the same concerning treatment of female servants. So why are you asking about the female servant being forced to have relations and not the wife? Because most people understand that in a husband-wife relationship there is understanding and good treatment. Well, the same applies to a relationship with a female servant.
Relations with the female servant were accepted by society. However, if the female servant did not agree to this, do you think the Muslim would have forced her? He can't because Islam commands the kind treatment of slaves.
I know you say it was a custom at the time and islam gradually abolished it........but in other cases such as alcohol, temporary marriage, gambling etc all these things gradually become disallowed in either the Qur'an or hadith, buyt slavery never becomes disallowed, in fact in the qur'an it enjoins having relationships with slave girls.
The Qur'an permits it. As mentioned previously, it could not immediately prohibit slavery which was at the root of the economy. Br. Chuck answered this nicely:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.
Ok so when i asked before what would happen if jihad happened today, what would happen with captives of war, wou said there would be institutions built etc. Firstly having given this some thought, why wasn't something sim ilar built at the time.
How would that be possible? How would it be possible for them to construct a shelter for hundreds and at the same time integrate them into society so that they would not just be consuming resources? How could they do that when they already had poor people who had no food to eat, such as the "people of the platform" in the Prophet's mosque?
Secondly if such a situation arose aren't we meant to follow the example of Prophet Muhammed, the "living Quran" who when this happened distributed the slave girls amongst companions etc.
The Prophet Muhammad pbuh did what he did because it was the best option in that situation. But that situation no longer exists today and most likely never will.

With regard to the situation at the time of the Prophet, if you have any doubt in your mind then I encourage you to read a good biography of the Prophet Muhammad's life, such as that by Adil Salahi.

Why didn't the prophet say in a hadeeth that after distributing slaves, that its the utmost importance for the state to free these slaves with adequate provisions as soon as possible, ok it said that if you free a slave you get reward, but that won't necessary encourage everyone to free slaves.
THe Prophet Muhammad pbuh did far more than say that freeing of slaves was the utmost importance - in Islam, the expiation for hundreds of little things is to free slaves. He made it binding in so many ways to free slaves. Let's look at another example from his life - the tribe of Al-Mustalaq:
According to the traditions which prevailed at that time both in Arabia and outside, prisoners of war became slaves. This applied both to men and women. Two hundred families of Al-Mustalaq faced slavery as a result of their ill-considered plan to attack the Muslims. It should be emphasized here that such a prospect was not as terrible as one may think today. Slaves in the Muslim state enjoyed all their human rights as fello human being to their masters. This was true only in the land of Islam. Islam treats every individual as a human being who is susceptible to be a good servant of God. Hence no one is despised or looked down upon simply because he lacks in forune or bad circumstances.

Freeing a Whole Tribe
The Prophet, however, did not like this prospect for his vanquished enemies. His primary thoughts did not follow the tendencies of kings and emperors. First and foremost, he was a Messenger of God whose task was to save mankind from subjugation to false gods. He did not view the material wealth of the Muslim community as his top priority. He realized that an act of kindness might win over the hearts of yesterday's enemy.
yet the Prophet could not enact special legislation for the tribe of al-Mustalaq. As long as slavery was an international practice, the Muslims could not abolish it unilaterally. If any Muslims were ever taken prisoners in a battle, they would have been enslaved by their enemies. hence enemy prisoners had to be treated likewise. Yet the situation called for immediate action to help al-Mustalaq people before it was too late.
The Prophet played a master stroke which brought about the desired results without any adverse repercussions. Among the women taken prisoner was Barrah, daughter of Al-Hârith, chief of al-Mustalaq. The Prophet took her for himself, granted her freedom from slavery and proposed to her. When she accepted, he married and renamed her Juwayriyyah. When the Muslims realized what the Prophet had done, they felt that they could no longer keep the people of al-Mustalaq as their slaves. The whole tribe were considered relatives of the Prophet now that he had married one of their women. This is in keeping with the tribal traditions of Arabia. So all the Muslims who had slaves from al-Mustalaq voluntarily set them free. The Muslims loved the Prophet more than they loved themselves, therefore it was natural that they did not like to have his relatives as their slaves. Thus Juwayriyyah was celebrated by her tribe as a woman of unparalleled blessings. She was the cause of their change of fortunes from slavery to freedom. Sortly afterwards, many of them embraced Islam. (fn. Ibn Hishâm, op. cit., pp. 307-308. Also, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, op. cit., p. 138/) (Adil Salahi, pp. 405-406)
but nowhere is it strongly encouraged,
EVERYWHERE it was strongly encouraged. Read the hadith I posted earlier.

I believe I have already answered most of your points.

:w:
Reply

Truth_Seeker
01-18-2006, 06:55 PM
You didn't answer my point on how Muhammed SAW practiced it, or the other prophets such as Prophet Ibrahim AS, Solomon AS was said to have 700 salve girls. Like i said, if it was evil during islam the prophet saw wouldn't have practiced it. Drinking and gambling were never prohibited, but the prophet SAW never did these things as they are still evil practices, yet he used to have slave girls.
You keep going on about how hard it is and you give same answer without answering mine

You must understand the strict rules Islam has placed with respect to relations between opposite genders. A female servant would be in the house all the time and in close proximity to the 'master'. Hence, it would not have been appropriate to leave this as it is, for undoubtedly there would have been problems that might arise. Just as Islam made relations within marriage permissable, it was necessary that these relations be made permissable as well in order to protect the society from corruption. These relations were considered no different from husband-wife relations, and just as Islam commands men to treat their women with kindness, likewise it says the same concerning treatment of female servants. So why are you asking about the female servant being forced to have relations and not the wife? Because most people understand that in a husband-wife relationship there is understanding and good treatment. Well, the same applies to a relationship with a female servant.
Ok, now i'll repeat again, how is it then that today in much more jahil societies full of fitna, muslim men are able to cope with having females around them, especially in the west where woman usually are wearing revealing clothes. Like i said before, there are servants in pakistan bangladesh today who do cleaning etc, men who hire can cope with not having sex with them, so why not back then. I'm sure they get enticed and tempted, but it's a test, so why wasn't it a test back then aswel. They know a wife is sufficient, so why wasn't it back then. They also had much greater belief in the kalimah, their iman was stronger, they'd seen the prophet saw, surely they would be able to control their desires?

Ok now a wife-husband relationship is different to a slavegirl-master relationship. A wife has guranteed rights, a contract, like i said before she chose to marry him, and consequently knew she was going to be having sex with him, the slave girl doesnt. With a wife a man builds a family, consults her when he needs her, when he needs light, do you think he would do this with a slave girl? So these rights are different, with a wife he can have sex whenever he wants, i understand that, but with a slave girl its different. Can you tell me then the difference between a slave girl and a wife, because if like you say these rights are the same why didn't he just marry her anyway, without the need for reward, or double the reward as the hadith says, as since its the same treatment he might aswel marry her right, but yet people didn't, they kept them as slave girls

Now can you please answer all the above issues i've re-raised
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-18-2006, 10:03 PM
:sl:
Prophets had slave girls because there was nothing wrong with that so long as one treated them properly. Of course, this only happened because the practice of slavery existed then.

Ok, now i'll repeat again, how is it then that today in much more jahil societies full of fitna, muslim men are able to cope with having females around them, especially in the west where woman usually are wearing revealing clothes.
These people do not live in the house of muslims, they do not have to be taken care of by them, they do not have to be fed and clothed by them.

It wasn't a matter of self-control, it was a matter of what was accepted about that relationship. And a man cannot force hismself upon his slave because if he did, that would not be in accordance with the Prophet's directive to treat slaves properly.

:w:
Reply

shanu
01-20-2006, 12:52 AM
Salam
Thank u for your answers
I had a major headache over this topic be4. One thing, im really glad is that the slave gal was not raped by a whole muslim army. I was frightened for one moment. N its true that Prophet Pbuh never ill treated slaves. Prophet pbuh is the best guide. Do u see him ill treating slaves. No right! So it only makes sense. Thanks for the links, but i feel a bit shocked by the question the army officer posted
Reply

Truth_Seeker
01-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Thankyou for the reply

1) Can i ask for all the similarities between a slave-girl and a wife, and all the differences? Because the way you make it sound, it's as if they have the same rights, if this was so why didn't they simply marry them knowing they would get double reward? It's quite clear rights are different, but you say slave girls do have some rights. I am obviously not as knowledgable as you, so i request if you could tell me of the rights slave-girls had. A wife could decide on education of a child, she could decide on decidions in the family, could a slave girl decide on such issues as education or upbringing of her own child?
Now sex is a beautiful thing that is required between a husband and wife, but their relationship does not end there, they talk to each other about problems and comfort each other. But would a master seek refuge in his slave girl? Sorry for the tone of questioning, but I just can't see what similar rights they had


2) Also you said how it was impossible for institutions to have been built with the resources they had. Well Allah SWT made the Prophet SAW's whole Seerah a lesson for us, so surely in his infinite power it would have been possible, resources would have been available. Why didn't Allah will it for slavery not to be so deep rooted in society, that way a command could have come down abolishing slavery, rather than all this ambiguity

3) This does seem to limit the Qur'an to a time period, which is what i always though the Qur'an wasn't- limited to time. Can you provide me of another example where Qur'an talks about something which is only meant for a time period, because i don't there is, and i think it's the same with slavery, it's enjoined and allowed for all times. for example it says don't pray when your intoxicated, this verse was obviously specific as people werent praying properly as they were drunk, and at the time drinking was allowed. But this actual verse is applicable for all times, at that time, today, or 100 years onwards, we're not allowed to pray intoxicated. Similar with the case of burying of female childs, the law is still applicable for today. Even the verse saying kill all disbelievers when you see them, even that can be applicable for all times in a certain context, ie those verses can be used in the futre when a war takes place, so again its meant for all times, and so why is having sex with slaves the only exception that was only meant for that time

4) How long did islam take then to abolish slavery completely?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-24-2006, 06:34 PM
:sl:
1. As Br. Chuck mentioned before:
it doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.
So the female servant and the wife are both due good treatment. However, the difference in rights include the fact that the wife recieves a dowry upon marriage, she has a right to her husband's money, and she is involved in making decisions in the home. Meanwhile, a female servant must be provided for (food and clothes hadith) just as a child must be provided for. It is quite obvious that some people may not be able to afford marriage as an option, as Muhammad Asad writes:
to those who for one reason or another are unable to marry free women and are, at the same time, not equal to the temptations arising from celibacy. As is made clear in the next sentence, the Qur’an discourages such marriages - obviously with a view to removing a major attraction from the institution of slavery as such, and thus promoting its abolition.

2. This is like asking, "Why did Allah swt create evil? Surely, in His infinite power He could have placed us all in paradise" or "Why did the Prophet Muhammad pbuh have to flee Makkah - surely Allah could have made him victorious from the start". Were there no slavery there would be no struggle to liberate people.

3. It seems you are not reading my posts. I answered this early on in this thread. The fact that the Qur'an responds to an oppressive cultural practice by setting steps for its removal does not contradict our saying that it is universal. The Qur'anic directives to treat slaves in a good manner and to free them as expiation for sins eventually lead to the abolishment of slavery, which is of course timeless. There are other verses in the Qur'an which are time-specific (eg. Qur'an 49:1-3) yet the lesson/wisdom behind them is timeless.

4. The question is not worded correctly. Islam is a system of life, and consequently it lays the path to the abolition of slavery - but it is up to human beings to walk that path and how fast they travel that path. The correct question would be, "How long did humans take to abolish slavery?", which is a historical question, not a religious one.

I hope this helps.
:w:
Reply

MetSudaisTwice
01-27-2006, 10:59 AM
salam
The Prophet SAW said whoever frees a slave, and then marries her, he will be rewareded twice
wasalam
Reply

justahumane
01-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Brother Ansar,

I was discuessing slavery on some other forum when a brother gave me link to this post for answer of my question, the brother too asked me to put the question before u. Plz read my question,

If we have a true islamic state which we dont have at the moment, a state based on holy quran and hadiths. So in such state if anyone tries to buy and keep a slave........, will that person be eligible of some kind of punishment? If yes than plz let me know the punishment and the islamic ruling.

Further bro Ansar I have a lot to discuess with U regarding ur answer to brother truth seeker's querry.Coz I m not least satisfied with ur answer. Inshallah I will let u know my views in next post soon.

Plz excuse me for my limited knowledge in english.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-28-2006, 04:36 PM
Hello justahumane,
Thank you for your post. You ask:
If we have a true islamic state which we dont have at the moment, a state based on holy quran and hadiths. So in such state if anyone tries to buy and keep a slave........, will that person be eligible of some kind of punishment? If yes than plz let me know the punishment and the islamic ruling.
In Islam, no free person can be made a slave. So in an Islamic state, unless there are already slaves, no one will be able to buy and keep a slave. Further, the Islamic state itself can ensure that all slaves are set free and that if anyone tries to enslave others a ta'azir (discretionary) punishment can be put in place.

You mentioned you found my answer unsatisfactory. I notice that you are a Hindu. Perhaps you could provide me with a satisfactory answer to these quotations:

The tongue of a Shudra, who spoke evil about a BRAHMIN should be cut off A Shudra who dared to assume a position of equality with the first three castes was to be flogged. If a Shudra overheard a recitation of the Vedas, molten tin was to be poured into his ears; if he repeated the Vedas his tongue should be cut and if he remembered Vedic hymns, his body was to be torn into pieces. (Apastambha Dharma Sutra III, 10-26)

Let the king never slay even a Brahmin though he may have committed all possible crimes. (Manu, 167-272)

Slavery is inborn among the Shudras and no one can free them from it. (Manu 8, Sloka 4,14)

Regards
Reply

justahumane
01-29-2006, 09:52 AM
Salam Brother Ansar,

Thanks for ur reply. U wrote:

[
B]In Islam, no free person can be made a slave. So in an Islamic state, unless there are already slaves, no one will be able to buy and keep a slave. Further, the Islamic state itself can ensure that all slaves are set free and that if anyone tries to enslave others a ta'azir (discretionary) punishment can be put in place.[/B]
My dear brother, how can u say that no free person can be made a slave? do u want to say that slaves are born and not made? and further we know by islamic sources that whenever muslims armies fought a war and won than the prisnors of war were made slaves by them. They were offcource free persons prior to the invasion of believers. So plz give me some better reasons to prove ur point...................further u have told me that islamic state can ensure that all slaves be set free. May I know who give right to the islamic state to ensure this? ALLAH or the Holy Prophet(saw)? I mean do u have any quranic verse or hadith to prove ur point?...............Further u tell me something like ta'azir punishment, what's that and had this kind of punishment been given in Islamic state?.............and U have not given me any islamic ruling in form of a ayah or some hadith, I m sure that U must be having one to prove ur point, so plz let me read that too to remove my misconception.

further u wrote brother,

You mentioned you found my answer unsatisfactory. I notice that you are a Hindu. Perhaps you could provide me with a satisfactory answer to these quotations:

The tongue of a Shudra, who spoke evil about a BRAHMIN should be cut off A Shudra who dared to assume a position of equality with the first three castes was to be flogged. If a Shudra overheard a recitation of the Vedas, molten tin was to be poured into his ears; if he repeated the Vedas his tongue should be cut and if he remembered Vedic hymns, his body was to be torn into pieces. (Apastambha Dharma Sutra III, 10-26)

Let the king never slay even a Brahmin though he may have committed all possible crimes. (Manu, 167-272)

Slavery is inborn among the Shudras and no one can free them from it. (Manu 8, Sloka 4,14)
Ya brother I found ur answer very much unsatisfactory and doctored one. And Inshallah I will be letting u known the reason for that very soon, but U have asked me something which is my priority to answer.

First of all who told u that the portion of scriptures u provided here belong to hindus? can u even for once find word hindu in those books from where u have discovered these verses? no way, I m sure that these verses are written by some mentally ill scholers who must be burning in hell right now, coz they tried to divide the creations of ALMIGHTY ALLAH in the name of anything. and scholers like u are busy quoting these verses to prove ur point.

Brother let me tell U a bit about my faith, hindu is my way of living, not religion. my religion is humanity which is offcourse the only religion of ALLAH/GOD/BHAGVAN, and I believe only in ALLAH/GOD/BHAGVAN..........thats all, no book, no messenger, only ALLAH..................rest of all religions on earth are man-made. I repeat all. And failure of all religions in its original form to provide a good society to mankind is unchallangable proof of my belief.

Next time in ur post I expect and request u to give me complete answer of my querry regarding slavery with islamic references. ie holy quran and hadiths. And u are more than welcome to raise ur questions about my faith, Inshallah I will try my best to answer them all.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-29-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
My dear brother, how can u say that no free person can be made a slave? do u want to say that slaves are born and not made?
No, what it means is that slavery was gradually abolished by Islam because it restricted its sources.
and further we know by islamic sources that whenever muslims armies fought a war and won than the prisnors of war were made slaves by them.
The possibility that prisoners of war could be made slaves was only one of the many possibilities, and we have already discussed this above. If you find any error in my previous explanation, please point it out.

further u have told me that islamic state can ensure that all slaves be set free. May I know who give right to the islamic state to ensure this?
When an Islamic state is built, since we are in a historical period where slavery has become extirpated, it is in the Islamic state's interest to ensure that it remains that way. This is keeping with the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh who encouraged Muslims to free slaves and even made it compulsory as expiation for many sins.

Further u tell me something like ta'azir punishment, what's that and had this kind of punishment been given in Islamic state?
There are two types of punishments in Islamic law: Hudood punishments and Ta'azir punishments. The latter are the discretionary punishments that an Islamic state gives for those offences for which a punishment has not been divinely ordained.

and U have not given me any islamic ruling in form of a ayah or some hadith, I m sure that U must be having one to prove ur point, so plz let me read that too to remove my misconception.
The point is simply logic - if you want to read the Qur'anic verses or ahadith on salvery please read earlier in this thread.

First of all who told u that the portion of scriptures u provided here belong to hindus? can u even for once find word hindu in those books from where u have discovered these verses? no way, I m sure that these verses are written by some mentally ill scholers who must be burning in hell right now
I can understand why you would want to disown these scriptures, but you're comments are clearly misinformed. Please see
Introduction to the Apastamba Sutras, ANCIENT HINDU LAWS
Apastamba

I quoted from the scriptures that are listed here:
A list of Hinduism's Scriptures

my religion is humanity which is offcourse the only religion of ALLAH/GOD/BHAGVAN, and I believe only in ALLAH/GOD/BHAGVAN
You believe in God, so logically you're religion is submission to God, right?

And failure of all religions in its original form to provide a good society to mankind is unchallangable proof of my belief.
Islam has provided humanity with the best society for over a millenia.

Regards
Reply

justahumane
01-30-2006, 04:34 PM
Salam and thanks brother Ansar for ur post.

In ur previous post U had written,

In Islam, no free person can be made a slave. So in an Islamic state, unless there are already slaves, no one will be able to buy and keep a slave. Further, the Islamic state itself can ensure that all slaves are set free and that if anyone tries to enslave others a ta'azir (discretionary) punishment can be put in place.
And later in ur next post U wrote about ur above comment,

No, what it means is that slavery was gradually abolished by Islam because it restricted its sources.
Brother I again ask u what u mean by no free person can be made slaves in islam? where is it written or ordered? On the one hand u say that no free person can be made slave....and at another u admit that the holy prophet and noble companions of him used to keep slaves ( Ya I know that it was a custom of that time). But what is still not clear that were those slaves who served the noble companions day and night were born slaves? were they not free prior to being officially appointed a slave? And could slavery be restricted without anti slavery laws? And plz dont telll me that masters were lured by promise of paradise by islam....coz we see today that muslims cant even resist interest which is already haram no 1 in islam, so how can they stop keeping slaves with the fact that it was never prohibited during islamic period. After all human's carnal lust need something like women slaves, than and now too. So giving credit to islam for eradicating slavery would not be logical in my honest views. U plz think again. Slavery could only be abolished coz of some man-made laws, this is a fact which cant be challanged by hypothetical arguments.

When an Islamic state is built, since we are in a historical period where slavery has become extirpated, it is in the Islamic state's interest to ensure that it remains that way. This is keeping with the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh who encouraged Muslims to free slaves and even made it compulsory as expiation for many sins.

Brother this historical period could be made possible due to some man made laws, if islamic state becomes a reality it will have no option but to abolish all mad made laws and to replace it with authentic islamic laws. Than only it will be a real islamic state...and I m sure that u cant afford to differ with me. In islamic state it willl become lawfull for muslims to keep slaves, and also lawful to sleep with female ones if their right hand possess one. Ya but they will have to feed them with what they eat and chothe them with what they wear. Not a bad deal when U dont have to pay wages...... How many muslims could resist having a slave then? And than I m sure that mass conversion to islam will happen too coz who dont want to enjoy slaves today? How many are there today who can resist this idea? Further we will have something which willl help us to repent ur sins. Sounds good for a human who is born sinner......one thing I want to point, ur words gives the impression that its we human being who have willingly given up idea of keeping slaves....its not like that brother.....its only some strict anti slavery measures taken by some great ppls in each society which made slavery an offence today. Almost all of us want to keep slaves, the only difference may be that a muslim would treat his slaves nicely coz his religion teaches him to do so and a non muslim may be harsh on his slave coz his religion has nothing like treat-well orders.

There are two types of punishments in Islamic law: Hudood punishments and Ta'azir punishments. The latter are the discretionary punishments that an Islamic state gives for those offences for which a punishment has not been divinely ordained
.

Brother I m afraid that I must dare to teach some islamic lessons to U. How can u say that Ta'azir punishment can be given for act of slavery? As U have urself very clearly defined that Ta'az'ir punishment can only be given for the offences for which no punishment has been divinely ordained. Its only for those crimes which were not in shape that time, like fatal norcotics, cyber crimes and so on. Who can dare order a Ta'az'ir punishment for slavery? when ALLAH himself didnt declared it an evil? I hope u understand what I mean. do u differ?

I
can understand why you would want to disown these scriptures, but you're comments are clearly misinformed. Please see
Introduction to the Apastamba Sutras, ANCIENT HINDU LAWS
Apastamba
Well brother I asked U a very simple question......do u or any other islamic scholer could find word hindu in anyyyy of the scriptueres u call hindu religious scriptures? How many hindus u see reading or worshipping those scriptures U are quoting? I dont deny that there are few hindus who have faith in those scriptures, but U cant make an opinion seeing a few hindus, U must see majority of them to reach to any conclusion. I again ask U, can U really expect me to explain those verses u quoted from so called hindu religious books, in same way that I can expect U to explain something from holy quran? So there is no point in using any link to prove urself......coz u can find all kind of material to promote virtually any idea on the nets. Once again if I and other hindus dont disown those scriptures than? what it proves? only that hindus are not fundamentalists, and they can think above those silly and inhuman ideas which their scriptures prescribes.

Brother, U wrote in earlier portion of this thread,

... one last thing. Lest anyone think that slavery is completely alien to Judaism and Christianity, let us examine what their sources say on the topic.

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (RSV)

Famous 18th Century Bible Commentator, Reverend Matthew Henry, writes:
That he (i.e. Israelite) should not serve as a bond-servant (v. 39), nor be sold with the sale of a bondman (v. 42); that is, "it must not be looked upon that his master that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure, as much as a man’s cattle; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant, whom the master has the use of only, but not a despotic power over.

...That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. Thus in our English plantations the negroes only are used as slaves; how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say… Let me only add here that, though they are not forbidden to rule their bondmen with rigour, yet the Jewish doctors say, "It is the property of mercy, and way of wisdom, that a man should be compassionate, and not make his yoke heavy upon any servant that he has. (SOURCE)
And another verse:
Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

Reverend Henry:
Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15. (SOURCE)
This one is particularly disturbing:
Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (NLT)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (NLT)

These quotes allow us to appreciate the revolution which Islam brought about with respect to removing slavery.
Once again time for ur islamic class brother.......U must know that slavery was always there during islam, coz there was only one religion from the time of Prophet Adam, so the portion of scriptures u quoted here are from islamic sources only. So slavery was always there, and ALLAH revealed his books at those times too.....but he never found slavery worth abolishing with a law, instead he kept letting this evil practise become more and more deep rooted. U can now only argue that ALLAH's prior messages have been altered.....still the question remains, did he ever abolished slavery in his earlier commands????? if yes than why not in his last one?......And plz dont keep talking of after affects of immidiately abolishing slavery........ALLAH had almost 27 years to gradually remove it the way he removed usuary and wine, or they were anything less deep rooted? or did he considered slavery a lesser evil not to include it in his haram list??????

One question to U brother, for how many years did the Holy Prophet(saw) lived after revealatin of the last verse of holy quran?

You believe in God, so logically you're religion is submission to God, right?

Well no the only name of my religion is humanity.......but it definetely asks one to submit to GOD.

Islam has provided humanity with the best society for over a millenia.
Well brother I dont believe in history 100%, coz history is often written by victors or mighty and often written with bias too. But what stops 1400 million strong muslims community spread over continents to make just a single islamic society based on Islamic principal and show to the world that what islam is all about? dont u think that anything which is good for humanity needs to pass a practical test, and so does islam needs too...... U cant keep arguing till Kayamah that Islam did this in past for over a millania, I can dare request U to do this today too, Just one true islamic country can make whole world to convet to islam brother. Can u afford to disagree?

There is a lot more to share with u brother with the earlier part of ur posts in this thread. In future Insha-Allah.

Thanks for reading.
Reply

Mohsin
01-30-2006, 04:51 PM
:sl:
I see you've come from the dr zakir naik website forum. http://www.drzakirnaik.com/OfficialF...2/Default.aspx, alhumdulillah you took the brother's advice then and came here
Its a shame Dr Naik himself doesn't answer on his websites, i've emailed him on several occasions and still no reply
Also i find it a bit weird that in none of his talks on the internet that anybody asks about Slavery, surely it would've come up once, or Dr Naik can at least write an answer about it on his site, since it is an area of great confusion and that's what the IRF is supposed to be doing, clarifying misconceptions etc
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-30-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
Brother I again ask u what u mean by no free person can be made slaves in islam? where is it written or ordered?
Right here, in the authentic hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection:

1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous.

2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price,

3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' " (Bukharri, Volume 3, Book 34, 430).

This contains the clear prohibition for making free persons into slaves. Islam restricted the source of slaves to only one, which we have exlained before, war captives.

On the one hand u say that no free person can be made slave....and at another u admit that the holy prophet and noble companions of him used to keep slaves ( Ya I know that it was a custom of that time). But what is still not clear that were those slaves who served the noble companions day and night were born slaves? were they not free prior to being officially appointed a slave?
No they were not. Just like the British people enslaved africans, Arabs enslaved others as well. And the children of slaves were considered slaves.

And plz dont telll me that masters were lured by promise of paradise by islam....
It was not just an incentive, it was an OBLIGATION TO FREE SLAVES as expiation for a number of sins.

Brother this historical period could be made possible due to some man made laws, if islamic state becomes a reality it will have no option but to abolish all mad made laws and to replace it with authentic islamic laws.
Since you have absolutely no understanding of how Islamic law works (you didn't know anything about ta'azir punishments) I will dismiss such comments as blatant ignorance.

May I also warn you that here you must post evidence to support what you say. If you only type out your person speculation on what an Islamic state would be like, it will be deleted.

Brother I m afraid that I must dare to teach some islamic lessons to U.
Considering how you didn't even know what a ta'azir punishment was, you are in no position to teach me anything, much less Islamic law. You need to TEACH YOURSELF proper manners and etiquettes on how to ask questions politely. its a shame that your so-called religion of 'humanity' does not teach you the same etiquettes we learn from Islam.

How can u say that Ta'azir punishment can be given for act of slavery?
Since you don't even know what a ta'azir punishment is, I think we will discard your opinion on what it can be used for and what it can't. Ta'azir punishment can be given because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh prohibted the making of free people into slaves in the authentic hadith that I showed you. Therefore an Islamic state must likewise prohibit this and impose punishments as a deterrence.

Well brother I asked U a very simple question......do u or any other islamic scholer could find word hindu in anyyyy of the scriptueres u call hindu religious scriptures? How many hindus u see reading or worshipping those scriptures U are quoting? I dont deny that there are few hindus who have faith in those scriptures, but U cant make an opinion seeing a few hindus, U must see majority of them to reach to any conclusion.
Ask any HINDU SCHOLAR they will tell you these are the MOST HOLY hindu scriptures!
Perhaps you did not read what I linked to before:
Apastamba (c. 600 BC), was an Indian priest/scholar associated with the black Yajur Veda (the others being Baudhayana, Vaikhanasa, Satyasadha, Bharadhvaja and Agnivesa). His Kalpasutra is an important part of the Hindu canon. (SOURCE)
Are we to understnad that Yajur Veda is also not an authentic hindu source? The vedas aren't really hindu scriptures, is that right?

U must know that slavery was always there during islam, coz there was only one religion from the time of Prophet Adam, so the portion of scriptures u quoted here are from islamic sources only.
Muslims do not believe that the Bible contains the true original message of the Prophets.

And plz dont keep talking of after affects of immidiately abolishing slavery........ALLAH had almost 27 years to gradually remove it the way he removed usuary and wine, or they were anything less deep rooted? or did he considered slavery a lesser evil not to include it in his haram list??????
This is perfect proof that you have not paid any attention to what I wrote earlier in this thread. I have answered the same question several times already on why slavery had to be gradually abolished. Every respected historian or sociolgist would agree that in arabia at that time, it would have been impossible to abolish slavery, in one instant. Islam did not rule arabia for 27 years; another blunder on your part. It was only after 13 years of persecution that the Muslims finally found shelter in Madinah - and yet you include those thirteen years in your estimate as well!

The bottom line is that it is human beings who need to change. Allah could decree something right then and there but if the humans are not ready, it would be pointless. It took humanity, not ten years, twenty years, or even a century, but almost an entire millenium to abolish slavery.

One question to U brother, for how many years did the Holy Prophet(saw) lived after revealatin of the last verse of holy quran?
Hardly a week.

Well no the only name of my religion is humanity
Who has the right to name your religion? You or God? Can you show me evidence that God named your religion 'humanity' ?

.......but it definetely asks one to submit to GOD.
That is what Islam is. Peace acquired through submission to God.

Well brother I dont believe in history 100%, coz history is often written by victors or mighty and often written with bias too.
I'm talking about established historical facts - by both Muslim and non-muslim historians.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-31-2006, 03:06 AM
Originally Posted by Moss
:sl:
I see you've come from the dr zakir naik website forum. http://www.drzakirnaik.com/OfficialF...2/Default.aspx, alhumdulillah you took the brother's advice then and came here
:sl: br. Moss, I almost missed your post here

JazakumAllahu khairan for passing on the link. It was nice of the brothers in that thread to refer here.

Its a shame Dr Naik himself doesn't answer on his websites, i've emailed him on several occasions and still no reply
Dr. Zakir doesn't run drzakirnaik.com he runs irf.net. Secondly, he is extremely busy. Thirdly, if you visit IRF on sunday, you can have all your answers from him on any issue.

:w:
Reply

justahumane
01-31-2006, 11:17 AM
Since you have absolutely no understanding of how Islamic law works (you didn't know anything about ta'azir punishments) I will dismiss such comments as blatant ignorance.

May I also warn you that here you must post evidence to support what you say. If you only type out your person speculation on what an Islamic state would be like, it will be deleted.
Well brother I read ur warning with respect. Further what evidence U want me to post? Keeping slaves is sunnah.............and its out of my understanding that any islamic government can punish one for it. And I admit my igrnorance on Islamic laws, being a non muslim, but when a true muslim like u can share wrong informations about islam than whats big deal if a kafir like me said something wrong? U are free to correct me by ur understanding whenever I write something wrong just like I m free to point urs mistakes.

And I think that u have a bit more understanding than me but still U miss too much regarding how islamic laws works, offcourse it works according to holy quran and sunnah. So whats wrong if I say that all man made laws should be abolished and replaced with authentic islamic laws? which doesnt have slavery as offence. And thanks for ahadiths u posted here for me, it clearly defines that ALLAH will be be against those who sell free persons. Now plz do me one more favour by posting some hadiths which tells that the holy prophet punished someone for this crime, if there is any.

Considering how you didn't even know what a ta'azir punishment was, you are in no position to teach me anything, much less Islamic law. You need to TEACH YOURSELF proper manners and etiquettes on how to ask questions politely. its a shame that your so-called religion of 'humanity' does not teach you the same etiquettes we learn from Islam
Thanks brother for giving me yet another lesson of manners and etiquettes islamic style. I too will try to teach U in return what my religion of humanity teaches me, in my coming posts, Insha-Allah.

Since you don't even know what a ta'azir punishment is, I think we will discard your opinion on what it can be used for and what it can't. Ta'azir punishment can be given because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh prohibted the making of free people into slaves in the authentic hadith that I showed you. Therefore an Islamic state must likewise prohibit this and impose punishments as a deterrence.
Brother U have reminded me many times that I dont know about taazir punishment, but now I know that, thanks to U. Islamic state CAN impose ta,azir punishment as a deterrence on making free persons as slaves.............but what will it do when prisonrs of war will be made slaves and thus reviving again a slave dynesty? Given human's need for slaves can u really rule out this?

Ask any HINDU SCHOLAR they will tell you these are the MOST HOLY hindu scriptures!
Perhaps you did not read what I linked to before:
Apastamba (c. 600 BC), was an Indian priest/scholar associated with the black Yajur Veda (the others being Baudhayana, Vaikhanasa, Satyasadha, Bharadhvaja and Agnivesa). His Kalpasutra is an important part of the Hindu canon. ([Link only for registered members])
Are we to understnad that Yajur Veda is also not an authentic hindu source? The vedas aren't really hindu scriptures, is that right?
Brother U plz ask a hindu scholer if he can find word hindu in any of this scriptures............its enough proof that these arent hindu scriptures. Secondly plz find how many hindus have knowledge about those scriptures besides knowing its names, this is proof that hindus dont consider it as authentic religious hindu scriptures. Its some sort of antient Indian litrature rather..............and for ur kind information hindu is not a religion at first place so how can u prove some book as hindu religious scripture is hard to understand for me. And plz dont ask me or give me any link to prove any point, if I give u any link of anti islamic site than will it be a proof on my behalf that islam is an evil? A word for wise is enough.

This is perfect proof that you have not paid any attention to what I wrote earlier in this thread. I have answered the same question several times already on why slavery had to be gradually abolished. Every respected historian or sociolgist would agree that in arabia at that time, it would have been impossible to abolish slavery, in one instant. Islam did not rule arabia for 27 years; another blunder on your part. It was only after 13 years of persecution that the Muslims finally found shelter in Madinah - and yet you include those thirteen years in your estimate as well!
Brother U too failed to understand me what I mean to say, I want to say that just like usuary and wine, anti slavery laws could had been included in the holy quran had ALLAH wished to make it prohibited. And when there is a will to do something ALLAH provides the way too. Sale of wine and taking of interest too would had been integral part of economy at that time, and many many ppls would be associated with it. Further when U say that slavery was universal and therefore Islam had no other option but to carry on with it..........than I must ask u whether usuary and wine were not universal?

Who has the right to name your religion? You or God? Can you show me evidence that God named your religion 'humanity'
No brother I cant show u any evidence that GOD named my religion as humanity, its something U can only feel with unbiased mind.

That is what Islam is. Peace acquired through submission to God.
Brother show me where is submission to GOD in this vast muslim world? where is peace in this vast muslim world? If there is any its not coz of islam its coz of anti islamic practices. Show me how Islam works? but not through theory but practical.

In my views brother, Islam has failed and failed drastically in providing a good or even an average society to muslims even, leave alone to the world. And huge promises of utopia are mere hypothesis, islamic style. I dont find any truth behind that at all.

May I know why muslims preferred to be munafiqs even after getting the best society under islamic laws for over a millenia? Why muslims only find holy quran fit for reciting and parroting and not worth following it? and plz dont ask me for any link to prove my point.

U might object on my using the term munafiqs for present day muslims. Let me make it clear that I talk about majority of muslims and not about some exceptions like U who are indeed true muslims. U must be knowing something munafiqs are someone who dont believe Islam by heart. And rejection of quranic laws worldwide among muslims is proof of my comment. Had they believed by heart than there was no reason why they would not had implemented them coz they are best being from ALLAH himself. I hope u get my point.

And u are yet to answer me why islam didnt try to abolish slavery when it was in the process of being deep rooted, coz islam is the only religion since the begning of this world.

Thanks, more questions follows Insha-Allah.
Reply

Mohsin
01-31-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Dr. Zakir doesn't run drzakirnaik.com he runs irf.net. Secondly, he is extremely busy. Thirdly, if you visit IRF on sunday, you can have all your answers from him on any issue.

:w:
Yes i understand he#s busy, mash'allah he does a lot of work for the deen and long may he continue doing it and may allah reward him greatly, we need more people like him. It's just whenever he comes UK he always give the address of where to ask him questions, and students of his who work in IRF are meant to be answering these questions, so surely they should answer them sometime, otherwise why give the site

What do you mean if i visit IRF on sunday's, do you mean as in person go to india? Lol that would be a problem for me as i live in the UK, or do you mean if i visit the website?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-31-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
So whats wrong if I say that all man made laws should be abolished and replaced with authentic islamic laws?
Because you don't understand how Islamic law works. Islamic law isn't solely based on the divinely ordained punishments (hudood). There are also discretionary punishments as well. So human reasoning and legislation is permissable within the general framework of divine laws.

And thanks for ahadiths u posted here for me, it clearly defines that ALLAH will be be against those who sell free persons. Now plz do me one more favour by posting some hadiths which tells that the holy prophet punished someone for this crime, if there is any.
So now you have admitted your error and acknowledged that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade enslaving free people, as I originally said to you. That's good. Now according to Islamic law, this is likewise forbidden and if someone tries to enslave a free person they will be punished because they are disobeying the Islamic state and the Prophet saws gave the Islamic state the authority to discipline those who violate Islamic laws.

.but what will it do when prisonrs of war will be made slaves and thus reviving again a slave dynesty?
I've answered earlier on slavery from war. First of all, war must be conducted by the Islamic state, only. Secondly, prisoners of war come under the authority of the Islamic state, not the soldiers. If the Islamic state has the facilities to maintain these captives, then they can do that as it is in the best interests of the Islamic state. In the time of the Prophet saws, they did not have such facilities so the only possible method was to entrust individual captives to various families, but the Prophet saws commanded good treatment regardless.

Brother U plz ask a hindu scholer if he can find word hindu in any of this scriptures............its enough proof that these arent hindu scriptures. Secondly plz find how many hindus have knowledge about those scriptures besides knowing its names, this is proof that hindus dont consider it as authentic religious hindu scriptures.
Why don't you tell me which are the Hindu scriptures and which aren't? Are the vedas hindu scriptures?

Sale of wine and taking of interest too would had been integral part of economy at that time, and many many ppls would be associated with it. Further when U say that slavery was universal and therefore Islam had no other option but to carry on with it..........than I must ask u whether usuary and wine were not universal?
If you prohibit wine or interest do you have to worry about what will happen to the wine, now that no one is drinking it? Do you have to worry what will happen to the money now that it is not being used for interest? Of course not. But slavery involves people; therefore, we have to worry about who will take care of these people and where they will go with no education, no work skills.

No brother I cant show u any evidence that GOD named my religion as humanity, its something U can only feel with unbiased mind.
'humanity' is an english word that just means people. With an unbiased mind I think we can all agree that 'Islam' (meaniong peace achieved through submission to God) is a much more appropriate name for the universal code of life for all humanity.

Brother show me where is submission to GOD in this vast muslim world? where is peace in this vast muslim world?
You are attempting to use the spotlight fallacy - a flawed form of argument. What you see in the media is not reflective of the everyone. Secondly, if you walk into a math class and you see students failing, will you conclude that math is flawed?! No, you will conclude that there is a problem in educating the students! Likewise, when we see that many people have not learned how to submit properly to God, it is because of ignorance, not because submission to God is a bad thing. When you say "I want to submit to God in peace" what you are really saying is "I like Islam", you just didn't know that.

May I know why muslims preferred to be munafiqs even after getting the best society under islamic laws for over a millenia? Why muslims only find holy quran fit for reciting and parroting and not worth following it? and plz dont ask me for any link to prove my point.
I'm sorry but on this forum, whenever you make a claim, you have to back it up. This is a scientific forum for factual discussion, not for personal prejudice or conjecture.

If there is a problem with the Muslims in the world, it is because of ignorance, lack of education. Just as many people have not been educated about mathematics, likewise they have not been educated about their religion, Islam. Yet we do not place the blame on Islam or on mathematics for the failure of students or adherents.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-31-2006, 04:24 PM
:sl:
What do you mean if i visit IRF on sunday's, do you mean as in person go to india? Lol that would be a problem for me as i live in the UK, or do you mean if i visit the website?
Yes, I meant India. I agree it would be difficult for you living in UK.

:w:
Reply

justahumane
02-01-2006, 10:09 AM
Salam Brother Ansar and thanks for ur post.

Because you don't understand how Islamic law works. Islamic law isn't solely based on the divinely ordained punishments (hudood). There are also discretionary punishments as well. So human reasoning and legislation is permissable within the general framework of divine laws.
Brother U ignore what I mean to say, look, there is no hadith which proves that anyone was punished for enslaving free person, the only hadith u could produce was indicating that ALLAH will be against those who will enslave free ppls, secondly I again stress that keeping slave is a sunnah, so which islamic judge can punish anyone for this crime is out of my reasoning capabilities. I dont contest that discretionary punishment cant be given, but I will stress on my point that no one can be punished for some act which comes in list of sunnah. Maybe u can call it my ignorance, still I wont deviate from my stand. i.e. In absence of a proper ruling no one can be punished for keeping a slave in a true islamic state U are free to disagree.

Why don't you tell me which are the Hindu scriptures and which aren't? Are the vedas hindu scriptures
Well brother first of all hindu is not a religion. The exact name of religion is Sanatan Dharma ie the Ancient Religion. But for ur convienience I will call it hindu. So only authentic hindu scripture is Bhagvad Gita..............which is considered words of Lord Krishna. Vedas are not authentic hindu scriptures, as I told u earlier it may be considered as some ancient literature.

If you prohibit wine or interest do you have to worry about what will happen to the wine, now that no one is drinking it? Do you have to worry what will happen to the money now that it is not being used for interest? Of course not. But slavery involves people; therefore, we have to worry about who will take care of these people and where they will go with no education, no work skills.
And this is from earlier part of this thread, offcourse from U

Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in the economy of Pakistan today. No one can refute Pakistan’s national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
Brother U already know that if wine is prohibited than no one care what will happen to wine, but concern should be on those who sell and produce wine, their living could be deeply affected. U have urself explained the concerns which prohibition of interest could raise.Again I will remind u that if there is a will, ALLAH provides the way.

And as for Pakistan's problem in not being able to eradicate interest, I must say that the only country in the world formed in the name of Islam should already know that Islam has prohibited interest, before allowing interest on its soil. I think that they were not taught proper lessons of islam too. otherwise they would never had allowed interest on their soil.

And u are frequently ignoring my question that why Islam didnt prohibited slavery while it flourished under it? From the time of Prophet Adam to Prophet Muhammad (saw). Why it allowd this menace become so deep rooted? Had ALLAH considered slavery as an evil he would had taken measures in his earlier commands he revealed to the earlier prophets of islam. dont u agree? plz dont ignore this question this time too.

'humanity' is an english word that just means people. With an unbiased mind I think we can all agree that 'Islam' (meaniong peace achieved through submission to God) is a much more appropriate name for the universal code of life for all humanity
.

Brother I m afraid that u are not unbiased. U must know that it was only due to humanity and not islam that kuffar rushed to help poor Tsunami victims in Indonasia and helpless quake victims in Kashmir. Those who swear by the name of islam either remained mute spectator or just came ahead with token help. Anyways I dont find this topic worthy of argument as to what shold be the name of one's religion. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet and a thorn by any other name will prick as hard. isnt it?

You are attempting to use the spotlight fallacy - a flawed form of argument. What you see in the media is not reflective of the everyone. Secondly, if you walk into a math class and you see students failing, will you conclude that math is flawed?! No, you will conclude that there is a problem in educating the students! Likewise, when we see that many people have not learned how to submit properly to God, it is because of ignorance, not because submission to God is a bad thing. When you say "I want to submit to God in peace" what you are really saying is "I like Islam", you just didn't know that
Brother I dont like the idea of comparing Islam with Maths or a Car what today's most knowledgable muslim scholer do to defend Islam. Still I will say that no, I wont say maths is flawed if a particular class failes and rest of classes do well in the subject. But definetely when I see the whole students of country failing in maths,than I will certainly feel that maths is not meant for these students. And it should not be imposed on them.

To become more clear, let me compare religion with school, now we have three different schools with us, school of Islam, school of christianity, and school of hinduism. Giving example of India, here we have around 700 million students of hinduism, around 150 million students of islam, just around 15 million students of christianity. But U wont find any town in India where christians institutions are not serving humanity, through hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc, and that too without any religious bias. offcource hindus come second in this list of service without religious bias, and Islam comes at poor third..............the student of this prestigious school are yet to sort out their own differences, helping and serving is distant possibility. So which religion is good for humanity? With islam, I see similar situation worldwide. And plz dont tell me that they are not proper student of islam, we all know very well that among all religions only students of Islam are most obidient and attentive students. rest of students dont give much value to the lessons of their religion.

I request U to think in the name of ALLAH and tell me whether there is any other community so fractured and divided like muslims today? hundreds of sects, each sect declaring others non muslim, leaders of sects justifying killing of others by quoting islam. Plz be honest in the name of ALLAH and tell me who is killing muslims in more numbers? are they kuffars or are they muslims themselves? And regarding ur quote I like Islam.............yes u are right, I do like Islam, just as I like any other religion in the world, I only dismiss the idea that Islam is the only true religion of GOD, I believe that there is no such thing as religion of GOD except humanity...........all religions are man made keeping in view the situation of that time when they came into existance, just to guide the society to right path. All prophets were noble creations of GOD. We must respect them all.

I'm sorry but on this forum, whenever you make a claim, you have to back it up. This is a scientific forum for factual discussion, not for personal prejudice or conjecture.
Brother I dont have at all any personal prejudice against any creation of GOD, it is the biggest sin for me to judge a person from his faith and not action. When I say that muslims are behaving as munafiqs than I have enough proof with me to prove my point. For instance if a news breaks out that americans have mis handled holy quran than muslims over the world will be on the road demonstrating against americans, shouting anti american slogans, burning effigies, but when it comes to follow the words of holy quran..........they simply dismiss it. almost all muslim countries allowing interest on its soil is proof of my statement. no country in the world implementing shariyah laws is proof of my statement. what else u need from me to pr ove that muslims are behaving like munafiqs? Dont they know that interest is declared as most haram in holy quran? dont they know that they can taste hellfire for eating interest? so whats wrong with their education?

If there is a problem with the Muslims in the world, it is because of ignorance, lack of education. Just as many people have not been educated about mathematics, likewise they have not been educated about their religion, Islam. Yet we do not place the blame on Islam or on mathematics for the failure of students or adherents.
No brother, U are wrong in my views, its only muslims who get the best education of their religion............U can find scores of madaris(religious schools) anywhere in the world where muslims live. No missionary school teach christianity and no hindu school teach Gita.........while in every muslim country, lessons of religion are compulsory from the very begening. If I say in ur words, teaching maths is responsible for worsening the education standerd of student coz they dont need it as their subject. It is being imposed on them unwillingly, by infilicting fear in their heart that if they dont learn maths than they will definetely remain uneducated (or burn in hell). Why dont try to teach them some other subject to shape their future if they are unable to learn maths?

Thanks for ur attention.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-01-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
Brother U ignore what I mean to say, look, there is no hadith which proves that anyone was punished for enslaving free person, the only hadith u could produce was indicating that ALLAH will be against those who will enslave free ppls
Okay, you clearly are not paying attention. Let's do this again. Here are the facts:
1. The authentic hadith proves that Allah will be against those who enslave free people, indicating the gravity of this sin
2. This obviously means that it is prohibited. So the Islamic ruling has been established that enslaving free people is prohibited.
3. The Islamic state has to enforce Islamic rulings
4. The Islamic state has the right to punish those who are not following the Islamic rulings (if you disagree, read the ahadith on the Riddah wars in the time of Abu Bakr rd)
5. Therefore, the Islamic state has the right to punish those people who enslave free people

Initially I went from pt. 1 to pt. 5 and assumed you would be able to follow, but clearly that wasn't the case, so now I have laid it out very simply so there will be no confusion.

secondly I again stress that keeping slave is a sunnah
Manfiestly, you have little understanding of what Sunnah is. Bring your evidence that it is sunnah. Sunnah does not refer to everything the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did; riding a camel is not sunnah, for example.

Secondly, the issue here is enslaving free people not keeping someone as a slave. In an Islamic state in the modern age, the only method of instituting slavery would be to enslave free people - something clearly prohibited.

So only authentic hindu scripture is Bhagvad Gita..............which is considered words of Lord Krishna. Vedas are not authentic hindu scriptures, as I told u earlier it may be considered as some ancient literature.
If you wish to disown your scriptures, I won't argue, but millions of Hindus revere and implement those passages I cited earlier.

Brother U already know that if wine is prohibited than no one care what will happen to wine, but concern should be on those who sell and produce wine, their living could be deeply affected. U have urself explained the concerns which prohibition of interest could raise.
I notice that you still did not answer my point. Money and wine do not need to be cared for, but a slave is a human who needs to be cared for. Yes, the slave master, the wine producer and those involved in interest would also be affected, but not as much as the slave.

Again I will remind u that if there is a will, ALLAH provides the way.
This is the fallacy I pointed out earlier. Yes, of course if Allah wanted there would never have been any slavery, or any evil at all on earth. Why did Allah create evil? So that we will have a test in trying to remove it.

And as for Pakistan's problem in not being able to eradicate interest, I must say that the only country in the world formed in the name of Islam should already know that Islam has prohibited interest, before allowing interest on its soil.
Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim country. There is no Islamic country in the world.

And u are frequently ignoring my question that why Islam didnt prohibited slavery while it flourished under it? From the time of Prophet Adam to Prophet Muhammad (saw). Why it allowd this menace become so deep rooted?
It didn't allow it. It was always prohibited, and the proof is the story of Pharoah who enslaved the children of Israel to work for him even though Prophet Moses called him to liberate them. It is the tyrants who have killed or rejected prophets and continued to enslave people like this. (Qur'an 26:22)

U must know that it was only due to humanity and not islam that kuffar rushed to help poor Tsunami victims in Indonasia and helpless quake victims in Kashmir.
I see you are getting confused because you are using an arabic word. I challenged you to only write 'submission-to-God' instead of Islam in your next post, and you will see how nonsensical your points become. This is my challenge to you; write 'submission to God' instead of Islam in your next post.

The problem you really have is with some Muslims, not Islam.

Anyways I dont find this topic worthy of argument as to what shold be the name of one's religion.
God has named our way of life as 'peace achieved through submission to Him' (Ar. Islam) and you have admitted that this is the essence of your way of life as well, thus the proof is clear that this is the most appropriate name.

Brother I dont like the idea of comparing Islam with Maths or a Car what today's most knowledgable muslim scholer do to defend Islam. Still I will say that no, I wont say maths is flawed if a particular class failes and rest of classes do well in the subject. But definetely when I see the whole students of country failing in maths,than I will certainly feel that maths is not meant for these students.
Go to some of the third world countries then and you will see the whole country's students failing in math. Go to mali or niger:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_sch_lif_exp_tot

To become more clear, let me compare religion with school
False analogy.

Islam is not a school. Islam is an unchanging code of laws, while school is a system of teaching laws. The proof is that there are schools where they teach Islam just like mathematics or science, yet Islam itself is not a school.

And plz dont tell me that they are not proper student of islam, we all know very well that among all religions only students of Islam are most obidient and attentive students.
This is nonsense. You obviously have not visited Muslim communities. The entire reason why Muslims are failing is because they have left their religion. Is there any country where the Masajid are as full for Fajr prayer as they are for Jumu'ah? No.

I request U to think in the name of ALLAH and tell me whether there is any other community so fractured and divided like muslims today?
of course. Muslims are not nearly as divided as Christians. Christianity is split right down the middle into catholics, eastern orthodox and protestants. You may try to point out Shias and Sunnis as well, but Sunnis are the clear majority, unlike in Christianity, where there are more sects, and the majority is a lesser percentage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ber_of_members

yes u are right, I do like Islam, just as I like any other religion in the world, I only dismiss the idea that Islam is the only true religion of GOD
You don't think submitting to God is the only path acceptable to God?! Logically, you're saying that disobedience to God is also acceptable to Him.

but when it comes to follow the words of holy quran..........they simply dismiss it.
THANK YOU. You just proved my point. Muslims are not following Islam. Therefore, the problem is with Muslims and not with Islam. If we could educate the people properly and bring them back to their religion, we would eliminate all the problems.

U can find scores of madaris(religious schools) anywhere in the world where muslims live.
Since you are not a Muslim, we will disregard your opinion on the quality of education a Muslim recieves. When I speak about proper Islamic education I am not speaking about simply memorizing a few surahs.

Why dont try to teach them some other subject to shape their future if they are unable to learn maths?
Why don't you go to those campaigns which are working to educate people in third world countries, teaching them mathematics amongst other subjects, and tell these people, "Don't teach them math".
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
02-01-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl:
Please read the following where your question has been answered:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

Also, see here:
Does Islam allow Slavery?


Question: I am a Captain in the Pakistan army and would like to know if can we have sexual relations with the women we are able to capture in wars? I have heard that in one of the wars during the time of the Prophet (sws), the whole Muslim army raped slave women offered to them provided that they practiced ‘Azal (coitus interruptus).
Answer: Well I am afraid you cannot do so. Since the question you have raised is an important one. I’ll give you a detailed answer:
In my opinion, among many other misconceptions about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery and permits its followers to enslave prisoners of war, particularly women and establish extra-marital relations with them. Islam, I must strongly affirm, has not the slightest link with slavery and concubinage. On the contrary, it completely forbids these practices. It is quite outrageous to associate such barbarities with a religion revealed to upgrade humanity.
The point which needs to be appreciated and which, perhaps, is the real cause of the misconception is that Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. It must be kept in mind that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Islamic Arab society. There were scores of slave men and women in almost every house. This was largely due to two reasons: First, during those times, the standard practice of dispensing with prisoners of war was to distribute them among the army who captured them. Second, there were extensive slave markets in Arabia in that period where free as well as men and women of all ages were sold like animals.
In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in the economy of Pakistan today. No one can refute Pakistan’s national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
To avert a similar disaster and to ward off a similar catastrophe, Islam had adopted a progressive and a gradual scheme, fourteen hundred years ago, to do away with the inhuman institution of slavery. Following are some of the measures it took in this regard:
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of ‘abd (slave-man) and amah (slave-woman) by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
As far as the war you have referred to, let me correct you on your information.
In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Madinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions (rta). Since at that time, the prohibition of slavery was passing through the interim period when it was still intact for reasons stated earlier, the Prophet (sws) accepted the right of masters to have sexual intercourse with the slave women as was the international law at that time but set about taking steps that could prevent this from actually happening. Let me explain the most important measure he adopted:
Among the prisoners of this battle was Sayyidah Jawayriyyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawayriyyah also accepted faith. The Prophet (sws) proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnized. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.
So actually no such instance of sexual intercourse with the slave women took place. It is totally wrong that they were raped. Also today as far as prisoners of was are concerned, they cannot be taken to be slaves and sexually benefited from. After the abolition of slavery that took place in the time of the Prophet (sws) as described above, no one dare maltreat a p.o.w. let alone sexually harass them. (SOURCE)
I hope this helps.
:w:
wow masha-Allah that has cleared up so many misconceptions for me:). Barak-Allahu feekum.
:w::rose::peace:
Reply

justahumane
02-02-2006, 04:20 PM
Salam and thanks for ur post brother Ansar.

Okay, you clearly are not paying attention. Let's do this again. Here are the facts:
1. The authentic hadith proves that Allah will be against those who enslave free people, indicating the gravity of this sin
2. This obviously means that it is prohibited. So the Islamic ruling has been established that enslaving free people is prohibited.
3. The Islamic state has to enforce Islamic rulings
4. The Islamic state has the right to punish those who are not following the Islamic rulings (if you disagree, read the ahadith on the Riddah wars in the time of Abu Bakr rd)
5. Therefore, the Islamic state has the right to punish those people who enslave free people

Initially I went from pt. 1 to pt. 5 and assumed you would be able to follow, but clearly that wasn't the case, so now I have laid it out very simply so there will be no confusion.
No brother U are wrong, confusion is still there. For instance if enslaving free ppls is prohibited in islam and the culprit is eligible for punishment than how come that the noble companions enslaved free ppls? ie prisnors of war who were free ppls prior to invasion of believers. Now I know that U are gonna argue that ALLAH had permitted enslaving of them. But being a kafir, I dont have this image of my ALLAH like U have. So I just dismiss ur argument as blasphamous. (if u give one like that, otherwise I will say sorry to U) U will further argue that freeing them was not logical coz they could again conspire against muslim. Than I will request U to stick to ur words and dont give any argument for viloating islamic laws. So none of ur 1 to 5 are worth believing for me at least, coz I m a kafir who think that enslaving someone is inhuman, whatever be the reason. And the ALLAH I believe in can never allow it to anyone, leave alone his messenger and his noble companions.

Manfiestly, you have little understanding of what Sunnah is. Bring your evidence that it is sunnah. Sunnah does not refer to everything the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did; riding a camel is not sunnah, for example.
I will say bad example. I dont have that much islamic knowledge that I can argue upon whether riding a camel is sunnah or not, but I can give u my word that no islamic state will punish anyone for riding a camel. And similarly for keeping a slave, coz the holy prophet himself had some.

Secondly, the issue here is enslaving free people not keeping someone as a slave. In an Islamic state in the modern age, the only method of instituting slavery would be to enslave free people - something clearly prohibited
U are utterly wrong, I have already told U why.

If you wish to disown your scriptures, I won't argue, but millions of Hindus revere and implement those passages I cited earlier.
Brother a muslim should not speak like this without any proof. its a LIE. Plz correct urself. I m concerned for U brother, ALLAH is listening.

I notice that you still did not answer my point. Money and wine do not need to be cared for, but a slave is a human who needs to be cared for. Yes, the slave master, the wine producer and those involved in interest would also be affected, but not as much as the slave.
Brother I already answered ur point. And plz dont try to prove me that a slave will be affected when he will get freedom. And further the holy prophet could had ensured that the slaves who want freedom must be freed, and slaves who want to carry on with their masters can remain slaves, untill they want freedom. I again say brother, will was not there coz slaves were need of society and law makers both, had there been the will to eliminate it, ALLAH would have provided the way.

This is the fallacy I pointed out earlier. Yes, of course if Allah wanted there would never have been any slavery, or any evil at all on earth. Why did Allah create evil? So that we will have a test in trying to remove it.
Brother I m a kafir, so I dont believe in duality of ALLAH and satan. ALLAH didnt created evil, its us humans who have created evil. satan is not a seperate entity....its just another face of us humans. There is a satan inside each human being.....its upon us human beings how much we can win over him and not allow to act. ALLAH creats us as a child, how much innocent is a child U must be knowing.

It didn't allow it. It was always prohibited, and the proof is the story of Pharoah who enslaved the children of Israel to work for him even though Prophet Moses called him to liberate them. It is the tyrants who have killed or rejected prophets and continued to enslave people like this.
Bother do u check what u type? I advice u to plz always weigh before u speak something. What u want to tell me? U think that this particular verse of holy quran is proof that ALLAH prohibited slavery but the holy prophet ignored the prohibition? Come on, was it U who claimed in previous post that muslim ummah is not properly educated about Islam? Now plz answer me properly, why ALLAH didnt prhoibited slavery before it became deep rooted, or such a custom that even the holy prophet and noble companions had to practice it

see you are getting confused because you are using an arabic word. I challenged you to only write 'submission-to-God' instead of Islam in your next post, and you will see how nonsensical your points become. This is my challenge to you; write 'submission to God' instead of Islam in your next post.

The problem you really have is with some Muslims, not Islam.
Brother I too told u that name hardly matters, so no need to challange me to use this name or that, when some prominent muslim scholer claims that islam is spreading than he obviously means that number of muslims are growing, U should rather challange prominent muslim scholers like Dr. Zakir Naik not to speak like that coz it sounds nonsensical and a lie. When he says that Isam is spreading than according to U he is saying that submission of ALLAH is spreading..... is he true?

False analogy.

Islam is not a school. Islam is an unchanging code of laws, while school is a system of teaching laws. The proof is that there are schools where they teach Islam just like mathematics or science, yet Islam itself is not a school
.

Brother U are very quick to declare my analogy as false one, but U urself compare islam with maths. Can this be called hypocricy? and what about Dr. Zakir Naik who compare islam with a car?

This is nonsense. You obviously have not visited Muslim communities. The entire reason why Muslims are failing is because they have left their religion. Is there any country where the Masajid are as full for Fajr prayer as they are for Jumu'ah? No.
Ya brother coz I m a kafir and thus have no manners and etiquettes so I often talk nonsence, thanks for pointing it out. And further let me share my views with U that muslims are failing coz they give too much importance to their religion. At least more than ppls of other religions give.

You don't think submitting to God is the only path acceptable to God?! Logically, you're saying that disobedience to God is also acceptable to Him.
Brothre Obidience of GOD is offcource acceptable to GOD, but definetely what Islam, or any other religion tells is not all what GOD wants, this is my belief. GOD hasnt revealed a code of conduct for humans. He has given enough mind to humans to know what is right and what is wrong. U must want me to bring proof, I will say that failure of all religions in its original form is unchallangeble proof of my comments, and further success of democracy and man made ideas too give strength to what I claim.

THANK YOU. You just proved my point. Muslims are not following Islam. Therefore, the problem is with Muslims and not with Islam. If we could educate the people properly and bring them back to their religion, we would eliminate all the problems.

Again wrong brother, its only muslims who follow their religion as much as one can. And this is the limit they can do. Islam cant be followed ahead of this willingly. This is a truth willl has to be accepted now, or later after some further damage. We have seen how good society talibaans had established on implementing islam 100%, we can see the modle of Saudi Arabia, where islam is implemented most......I m sure that today's muslim is not ready to accept amputation for theft of stoning for adultry. and no human can be, these laws are unpractical and cant be from ALLAH. Keeping in mind human's nature ALLAH cant prescribe such kind of punishement muslims themselves know, but cant speak out coz idea of hellfire is just terrible. Becoz iman is neither very strong nor too weak.

Since you are not a Muslim, we will disregard your opinion on the quality of education a Muslim recieves. When I speak about proper Islamic education I am not speaking about simply memorizing a few surahs.
Brother may I know what kind of education was given to muslims during the times of the holy prophet and right after him? Wat is quality islamic education?

Why don't you go to those campaigns which are working to educate people in third world countries, teaching them mathematics amongst other subjects, and tell these people, "Don't teach them math".
Was this remark really relevent? All I wanted to say that if some students dont want to learn maths than why impose maths on them.

Thanks
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-02-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
No brother U are wrong, confusion is still there. For instance if enslaving free ppls is prohibited in islam and the culprit is eligible for punishment than how come that the noble companions enslaved free ppls? ie prisnors of war who were free ppls prior to invasion of believers.
Again, as I already explained to you, we're not talking about prisoners of war. We're talking about enslaving free people outside the context of war. The Islamic state can punish someone who enslaves a free person outside of war.

As for war, this was explained earlier in this thread. No soldier was EVER allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced upon in war. Any captives obtained in war were turned over to the Islamic gov't which decided they're fate. This included the following options:
-ransoming captives or trading trading them for muslim prisoners of war captured by the enemy
-often freed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh if they could teach ten Muslims to read/write
-since the Islamic state did not have institutions or resources to shelter and take care of so many prisoners of war, they were entrusted to various families as servants. Slavery was the norm for prisoners of war but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh mandated that they be treated properly and not abused.

In the modern context I already explained that an Islamic state would be able to decide what is best for the prisoners of war and could easily afford the institutions necessary to shelter and care for such people.

I dont have that much islamic knowledge
Exactly. You should learn from those who do.

U are utterly wrong, I have already told U why.
I have refuted your explanation. War can only be carried out by an Islamic state so please tell me how it is possible for someone to acquire a slave in an Islamic state?

Brother a muslim should not speak like this without any proof.
I have provided the proof. I have given you many sources which agree that these are sacred hindu scriptures.

Brother I already answered ur point.
You have provided no answer whatsoever besides saying "plz don't tell me this or plz don't tell me that". You think this is evidence? You think this is a strong argument?

And further the holy prophet could had ensured that the slaves who want freedom must be freed, and slaves who want to carry on with their masters can remain slaves, untill they want freedom.
Any reasonable person would realize that that is exactly the same problem. All the slaves would be freed and the economy would collapse causing all of them to suffer.

Brother I m a kafir, so I dont believe in duality of ALLAH and satan. ALLAH didnt created evil, its us humans who have created evil.
If you believe that God did not create evil that means you DO believe in duality. Please research your terms properly before making such a mistake. The Zoroastrians are a perfect example for duality - they didn't believe that God could create evil so they said that there are two gods - Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, the former good and the latter evil.

And you have made another mistake. You said God didn't create evil but humans created evil - who created humans? God! Therefore you are saying God has indirectly created evil.

My point remains the same regardless. The question of why God allowed slavery to spread is exactly the same as the atheist's 'problem of evil' which asks, "If God is all powerful why did He create evil?"

Now plz answer me properly, why ALLAH didnt prhoibited slavery before it became deep rooted, or such a custom that even the holy prophet and noble companions had to practice it
I already told you it was prohibited. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not ignore the prohibition, but he put steps in place to remove slavery once again.

Brother I too told u that name hardly matters, so no need to challange me to use this name or that
So you have failed my challenge. You couldn't do it because you realized it would render your posts nonsensical.

When he says that Isam is spreading than according to U he is saying that submission of ALLAH is spreading..... is he true?
Absolutely.

Brother U are very quick to declare my analogy as false one, but U urself compare islam with maths.
Islam can be compared with mathematics. This is an adequate analogy. Islam cannot be compared with school. This is a false analogy.

Is that clear? I'm surprised I need to spell things out for you in such a basic manner.
and what about Dr. Zakir Naik who compare islam with a car?
His analogy serves the same purpose although the mathematics analogy is even more accurate.

And further let me share my views with U that muslims are failing coz they give too much importance to peace achieved through submission to God.
There, I replaced the words for you. Now look how ridiculous your comments is.

Brothre Obidience of GOD is offcource acceptable to GOD, but definetely what Islam, or any other religion tells is not all what GOD wants, this is my belief. GOD hasnt revealed a code of conduct for humans. He has given enough mind to humans to know what is right and what is wrong. U must want me to bring proof, I will say that failure of all religions in its original form is unchallangeble proof of my comments, and further success of democracy and man made ideas too give strength to what I claim.
Religion has not failed. God has not failed. Human beings have failed. They have failed to follow the religion of God and because they do not follow it how can they hope to achieve success?

Again wrong brother, its only muslims who follow their religion as much as one can.
Then you just contradicted yourself.

Muslims today no longer follow their rleigion and that is why they are suffering. Take it from me - I know the Muslim community, you don't.

We have seen how good society talibaans had established on implementing islam 100%, we can see the modle of Saudi Arabia, where islam is implemented most
Neither Taliban nor Saudi Arabia were/are pure Islamic governments. The Islamic government is a Khilafa. Neither of the two mentioned come close.

I m sure that today's muslim is not ready to accept amputation for theft of stoning for adultry. and no human can be, these laws are unpractical and cant be from ALLAH.
These questions have all been answered in the following thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ariah-law.html

Brother may I know what kind of education was given to muslims during the times of the holy prophet and right after him? Wat is quality islamic education?
Please read:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/I...rticle19.shtml

Was this remark really relevent? All I wanted to say that if some students dont want to learn maths than why impose maths on them.
Everyone has the right and the need to at least learn the basics. They don't need to become mathematicians just like not every Muslim needs to become a great scholar. But just like no one rejects math as false simply because they have difficult learning it, likewise, that is also not a proper answer for Islam.

Regards
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
02-03-2006, 10:42 AM
:sl:
Bro Ansar, something came across my mind. In the Qur'an when it speaks of 'those whom your right hand posess'..... what does this mean?
Reply

justahumane
02-03-2006, 11:06 AM
Salam brother Ansar and thanks for ur reply again.

Again, as I already explained to you, we're not talking about prisoners of war. We're talking about enslaving free people outside the context of war. The Islamic state can punish someone who enslaves a free person outside of war.
Brother we are talking about poor free ppls who were enslaved during the time of Islamic state, and we are talking about whether under islamic state slavery will return again or not. And I have clearly explained to U that coz the holy prophet had no objection enslaving free ppls so no islamic state can impose any kind of punishment for this.

since the Islamic state did not have institutions or resources to shelter and take care of so many prisoners of war, they were entrusted to various families as servants. Slavery was the norm for prisoners of war but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh mandated that they be treated properly and not abused.
Brother I think that its not so nicely-cooked-up story that U are telling me frequently. Why so many prisnors of war were to be captured in a state which was based on peace achieved through submission of GOD ie Islam. What was the need for peace achieved through submission of GOD state to add numbers of slaves while it was prohibited long ago by the peace achieved through submission of GOD?. Why the noble companions had to sleep with those poor female who were enjoying free life when the believers of peace achieved through submission of GOD, attacked them and took them as prisoners? And did sleeping with those femals didnt meant abusing them for the holy prophet? how come?

Exactly. You should learn from those who do.
I m already following ur advice brother and thats why I m here in ur forum.

I have refuted your explanation. War can only be carried out by an Islamic state so please tell me how it is possible for someone to acquire a slave in an Islamic state?
Brother I have frquently told u that iits only possible for someone to aquire a slave in an Islamic state, in kufr state one cant dare do that. I have frequently told U that all ur arguments are false and hypothetical one.

I have provided the proof. I have given you many sources which agree that these are sacred hindu scriptures.
Brother I too had asked U that if giving some link of a website is enough proof in ur views than are u going to accept whatever is written there in a site? I can too give u many links which speaks otherwise about Islam.

Any reasonable person would realize that that is exactly the same problem. All the slaves would be freed and the economy would collapse causing all of them to suffer
.

Brother any reasonable person will tell U that if the holy prophet allowd slavery to happen and himself practised it than it was wrong on his part. And I only expect that the slaves wh o wanted to be free and return to their loved once should had been freed by peace achieve through submission to GOD state. At least to justify the name of Islam.

And you have made another mistake. You said God didn't create evil but humans created evil - who created humans? God! Therefore you are saying God has indirectly created evil.
Brother I m sorry to say that ur religion which is peace achieved through submisson to GOD give this kind of lessons. I m sure this is why muslims over the world are yet to establish their identity as peace loving ppls. But I m comfortable with the thought that its us humans who created evil, not GOD.

I already told you it was prohibited. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not ignore the prohibition, but he put steps in place to remove slavery once again.
Brother plz wake up giving this type of answers. how can u say that the peace achived through submission to GOD Prohibited slavery while the holy prophet himself practised it? U will have to choose one word, either prohibition or custom, U cant keep on saying that although slavery was prohibited by GOD but the holy prophet had no option but to practise it coz it was custom of that time. Offcource the holy prophet was sent to eradicate inhuman customs and not to be a part of them.

So you have failed my challenge. You couldn't do it because you realized it would render your posts nonsensical.
Brother just to honour ur challange I have used the phrase u wanted me to use instead of islam. and ya it really looks nonsensical. I think that in future I should not use that phrase. so plz dont challange me again, and even if U do I m not gonna honour it again, coz it really looks odd. But still I will argue that if u name the rose as thorn and thorn as rose than will the exact properties of rose and thron will change?

Quote:
When he says that Isam is spreading than according to U he is saying that submission of ALLAH is spreading..... is he true?

Absolutely
So brother when Dr Zakir Naik says that peace achieved through submission of GOD is spreading than he is saying the truth? show me where is peace achieved through submission of GOD? Is this peace which Submission of GOD promises? is yes than okay, I got ur point that what kind of society this religion of peace achieved through submisson of GOD promisees and thanks ALLAH that he kept me on right path. As a kafir.

Islam can be compared with mathematics. This is an adequate analogy. Islam cannot be compared with school. This is a false analogy.

Is that clear? I'm surprised I need to spell things out for you in such a basic manner
Brother the exact problem with this religion of peace achieved through submisson of GOD is that its followers are always hell bent in proving the wrong to be right, Islam can be compared with Maths, Islam can be compared with Car.............than how come Islam cant be compared with a school? whats wrong with this analogy? and whats so special with the analogy of two great scholers of islam? my kafir mind is really unable to understand, ALLAH knows the best who is right.

There, I replaced the words for you. Now look how ridiculous your comments is.
U said it all, so did I.

Religion has not failed. God has not failed. Human beings have failed. They have failed to follow the religion of God and because they do not follow it how can they hope to achieve success?
So do u agree to my point that the religion of peace achieve through submission to GOD has produced more munafiqs than muslims? so how come U agree to the statement that peace achieved through GOD is spreading?

Then you just contradicted yourself.

Muslims today no longer follow their rleigion and that is why they are suffering. Take it from me - I know the Muslim community, you don't.
I term as yet another wrong statement from U.

Neither Taliban nor Saudi Arabia were/are pure Islamic governments. The Islamic government is a Khilafa. Neither of the two mentioned come close.
Okay brother I got It. So I was wrong when I thought that at least this religion of peace achieved through submission of GODis not quiet disappeared. But with ur above statement I will have to rethink.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-03-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
And I have clearly explained to U that coz the holy prophet had no objection enslaving free ppls
Incorrect. I already gave you the hadith, which cleary shows the Prophet's saws condemnation of those who enslave free people.

Please allow me to summarize what we have discussed.

-Enslaving free people comes under two categories:
a)enslaving those other than prisoners of war. This is categorically prohibited in Islam as seen in the hadith (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, 430) therefore, someone who does this can be punished by an Islamic state.
b) enslaving prisoners of war. A few points to note:
War can only be carried out by an Islamic state, therefore no person has the right to enslave a captive.
The captives become the responsibility of the Islamic state once they are captured. If the Islamic state has the institutions and resources available to shelter and care for the prisoners of war, then they will do so. Or the prisoners can be ransomed or exchanged for Muslim prisoners.
In the time of the Prophet saws they did not have the institutions or the capacity to shelter prisoners of war, consequently they were entrusted to Muslim families.

Why so many prisnors of war were to be captured in a state which was based on peace achieved through submission of GOD ie Islam.
It is easy for people to say whatever they want, so let's read the historical facts about what happened in the time of the Prophet saws:
According to the traditions which prevailed at that time both in Arabia and outside, prisoners of war became slaves. This applied both to men and women. Two hundred families of Al-Mustalaq faced slavery as a result of their ill-considered plan to attack the Muslims. It should be emphasized here that such a prospect was not as terrible as one may think today. Slaves in the Muslim state enjoyed all their human rights as fellow human beings to their masters. This was true only in the land of Islam. Islam treats every individual as a human being who is susceptible to be a good servant of God. Hence no one is despised or looked down upon simply because he lacks in forune or bad circumstances.

Freeing a Whole Tribe
The Prophet, however, did not like this prospect for his vanquished enemies. His primary thoughts did not follow the tendencies of kings and emperors. First and foremost, he was a Messenger of God whose task was to save mankind from subjugation to false gods. He did not view the material wealth of the Muslim community as his top priority. He realized that an act of kindness might win over the hearts of yesterday's enemy.
yet the Prophet could not enact special legislation for the tribe of al-Mustalaq. As long as slavery was an international practice, the Muslims could not abolish it unilaterally. If any Muslims were ever taken prisoners in a battle, they would have been enslaved by their enemies. hence enemy prisoners had to be treated likewise. Yet the situation called for immediate action to help al-Mustalaq people before it was too late.
The Prophet played a master stroke which brought about the desired results without any adverse repercussions. Among the women taken prisoner was Barrah, daughter of Al-Hârith, chief of al-Mustalaq. The Prophet took her for himself, granted her freedom from slavery and proposed to her. When she accepted, he married and renamed her Juwayriyyah. When the Muslims realized what the Prophet had done, they felt that they could no longer keep the people of al-Mustalaq as their slaves. The whole tribe were considered relatives of the Prophet now that he had married one of their women. This is in keeping with the tribal traditions of Arabia. So all the Muslims who had slaves from al-Mustalaq voluntarily set them free. The Muslims loved the Prophet more than they loved themselves, therefore it was natural that they did not like to have his relatives as their slaves. Thus Juwayriyyah was celebrated by her tribe as a woman of unparalleled blessings. She was the cause of their change of fortunes from slavery to freedom. Sortly afterwards, many of them embraced Islam. (fn. Ibn Hishâm, op. cit., pp. 307-308. Also, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, op. cit., p. 138/) (Adil Salahi, pp. 405-406)
See also my earlier post in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/127799-post10.html
This answers alll your questions. Slavery was not introduced by Islam, it was gradually prohibited.

Brother I have frquently told u that iits only possible for someone to aquire a slave in an Islamic state, in kufr state one cant dare do that.
You avoided the question! Again: HOW is someone going to acquire a slave in an Islamic state? Where would they get a slave?

Brother I too had asked U that if giving some link of a website is enough proof in ur views than are u going to accept whatever is written there in a site? I can too give u many links which speaks otherwise about Islam.
Who is Apastamba? You tell me.

Brother any reasonable person will tell U that if the holy prophet allowd slavery to happen and himself practised it than it was wrong on his part.
The Prophet Muhammad pbuh took steps towards the gradual prohibition of slavery.

Brother I m sorry to say that ur religion which is peace achieved through submisson to GOD give this kind of lessons. I m sure this is why muslims over the world are yet to establish their identity as peace loving ppls.
You have just committed the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack.

The atheists ask the question: If God is good and and all-powerful then why is there evil in the world? Is God capable of and willing to removing the evil in the world?

From the looks of it, you would have a very difficult time answering that question. I have given a detailed explanation on the 'problem of evil' in this thread but for the purpose of the current thread I would just briefly point out that the existence of 'evil' in our lives is a trial from God. If there was no hunger, where would the test be to feed people? If there was no poverty, where would the test be to donate generously? If there was no injustice, where would the test be to establish justice? If there was no violence, where would the test be to establish peace?

Brother plz wake up giving this type of answers.
Stop giving these answers? Why? Because I've answered all your questions and refuted all your claims? ;D

Offcource the holy prophet was sent to eradicate inhuman customs and not to be a part of them.
And that is why he put steps in place to abolish slavery, such as the obligation to free slaves as expiation in many cases.

Enslaving is NOT the sunnah. Freeing slaves is the sunnah.

Brother just to honour ur challange I have used the phrase u wanted me to use instead of islam.
Thanks.

So brother when Dr Zakir Naik says that peace achieved through submission of GOD is spreading than he is saying the truth? show me where is peace achieved through submission of GOD?
Even as we speak, millions of people are realizing the truth about God and accepting the path of submitting to Him by following His commands, thus attaining peace, both internal and external. Even on our forum we have dozens of converts.

Islam can be compared with Maths, Islam can be compared with Car.............than how come Islam cant be compared with a school? whats wrong with this analogy?
I explained. Islam is something that is learned and studied as a subject. Islam is not a school, math is not a school, science is not a school. These are all things that are taught in school.

So do u agree to my point that the religion of peace achieve through submission to GOD has produced more munafiqs than muslims? so how come U agree to the statement that peace achieved through GOD is spreading?
It is true that many have left the path of peace achieved through submission to God and they are no longer following God's commands. But it is also true that God is replacing them with people better than them who are willing to submit to God and love His path.

Okay brother I got It. So I was wrong when I thought that at least this religion of peace achieved through submission of GODis not quiet disappeared. But with ur above statement I will have to rethink.
The political teachings of the religion are not being implemented in the world, but that doesn't mean that the other teachings are not.

Regards
Reply

justahumane
02-03-2006, 04:53 PM
Salam brother Ansar,

Well brother we have discuessed a lot about this issue. But I think that we havent moved anywhere. Althogh U succeeded in convincing me about the holy prophet's willingness to help out those poor slaves, but I failed to make u understand any of my point. Let me tell U that I have all the respects for the holy prophet and all the honour for ur emotions about him. I dont have any problem with islam too. But I have my own views about religions. I really feel uncomfortable when I have to talk about the holy prophet while discussing this subject. And further I almost agree whatever u tell me about good treatment prescribed by him. So not too much to discuess here. Still let me make it known to U that differences are still there.

You avoided the question! Again: HOW is someone going to acquire a slave in an Islamic state? Where would they get a slave?
Brother the time has changed, but muslim's differences with other religions have not been sorted out yet. NO one can deny that current world situation calls for jihad for a true islamic state. We cant imagine that the current situation will change overnight. So Jihad is bound to happen. And moreover ALLAH has promised muslims victory too..........Here I just dismiss ur modle of islamic state. Its ur perception. I can imagine that when Jews, Christians, and Mushriks will become PoW than how islamic government is going to treat them. Offcource they can be soft on them and enslave them with the instruction of good food or cloting. But I cant imagine that how the jew ppls are going to be treated, upon whom Dr. Zakir Naik quotes that sucide bombing is halal coz all israili jews are army personals. They surely deserve slavery, thanks to their cruel acts. So plz dont ask me where the slaves willl come from. Just let any Islamic state become a reality. Slave dynesty is going to revive Inshallah. Good news for the wealthy of the world.

Who is Apastamba? You tell me.
Brother honestly I dont know and nor I m interested in knowing. So U will find 99 out of 100 hindus not knowing that much about ancient hinduism as U do, plz check it out by going to any hindu chat room on YAHOO. its my request to U, or if u can ask some hindus personally than plz do that. U will feel proud of urself for knowing about the other religion hundred times more than an average hindu.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh took steps towards the gradual prohibition of slavery.
Okay.

.
The atheists ask the question: If God is good and and all-powerful then why is there evil in the world? Is God capable of and willing to removing the evil in the world?

From the looks of it, you would have a very difficult time answering that question. I have given a detailed explanation on the 'problem of evil' in [Link only for registered members] but for the purpose of the current thread I would just briefly point out that the existence of 'evil' in our lives is a trial from God. If there was no hunger, where would the test be to feed people? If there was no poverty, where would the test be to donate generously? If there was no injustice, where would the test be to establish justice? If there was no violence, where would the test be to establish peace?
Brother I agree with the later part of ur statement. But evil is somethig else. Evil is misusing of the power in crushing the creation of GOD, And often this is done in the name of service to GOD. Evil is raping some helpless lady. Evil is killing some innocent. I cant really give u the name of all but there are definetely thousands. So I again say, GOD hasnt created evil, or satan, its created by us humans. And as far as the question of atheists is concerned I can give the answer according to my viewpoint. But at the end of day I believe that we cant learn ALL thats in GOD's mind. So we should do our duty and leave rest on ALLAH, According to hinduism.....GOD has said in Bhagvat Gita that just do ur duty, U will get proper return for ur deeds by me. So plz think again that who has created rape. GOD or human? Who has created killing? and who have created the real evil on earth. I know U wont agree, but I just wanted to make my views known to u. coz I know urs.

Stop giving these answers? Why? Because I've answered all your questions and refuted all your claims?

Its good if u have refuted all my claims, plz accept my congratulations too. There are many more ahead waiting too.

And that is why he put steps in place to abolish slavery, such as the obligation to free slaves as expiation in many cases.

Enslaving is NOT the sunnah. Freeing slaves is the sunnah.
Okay.

Brother I m short of time right now, so I wil answer remaining part of ur post tomorrow Inshallah. Its bed time in India.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-03-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
And further I almost agree whatever u tell me about good treatment prescribed by him.
Thank you justahumane, it is wonderful to know that we have been successful in clarifying confusion through this dialogue. :)

NO one can deny that current world situation calls for jihad for a true islamic state.
err...what?
I can imagine that when Jews, Christians, and Mushriks will become PoW than how islamic government is going to treat them. Offcource they can be soft on them and enslave them with the instruction of good food or cloting.
In the event of a new Islamic gov't and a new war breaks out, God forbid, there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, anyone who is captured comes under the jurisdiction of the Islamic gov't and not the soldiers. The Islamic government has to look at what is best for the collective state. Since resources and institutions would be able available to imprison prisoners, there is no reason why the gov't would attempt to re-institute slavery, especially when it has been abolished on a global level. Such actions would not serve any purpose.
But I cant imagine that how the jew ppls are going to be treated, upon whom Dr. Zakir Naik quotes that sucide bombing is halal coz all israili jews are army personals. They surely deserve slavery, thanks to their cruel acts.
First, prisoners of war cannot be treated badly just because we don't like them. That is haraam. Please see the rights of Prisoners of war:
http://www.islamicboard.com/depth-is...tml#post173422

Secondly, if you want to attribute something to Dr. Naik, please provide a quote and we can discuss it.

Brother I agree with the later part of ur statement. But evil is somethig else. Evil is misusing of the power in crushing the creation of GOD, And often this is done in the name of service to GOD. Evil is raping some helpless lady. Evil is killing some innocent. I cant really give u the name of all but there are definetely thousands. So I again say, GOD hasnt created evil, or satan, its created by us humans. And as far as the question of atheists is concerned I can give the answer according to my viewpoint. But at the end of day I believe that we cant learn ALL thats in GOD's mind. So we should do our duty and leave rest on ALLAH, According to hinduism.....GOD has said in Bhagvat Gita that just do ur duty, U will get proper return for ur deeds by me. So plz think again that who has created rape. GOD or human? Who has created killing? and who have created the real evil on earth. I know U wont agree, but I just wanted to make my views known to u. coz I know urs.
The atheist would ask, "Why does God permit such evil things to occur?"

Just like you asked me, "Why did God permit slavery to develop?"

Its good if u have refuted all my claims, plz accept my congratulations too. There are many more ahead waiting too.
Thanks. It good of you to accept that as well; I'm sure we can be very productive with such open-minded dialogue.

Its bed time in India.
Sweet dreams.
Reply

justahumane
02-04-2006, 09:42 AM
Salam brother Ansar and thanks for ur post.

Even as we speak, millions of people are realizing the truth about God and accepting the path of submitting to Him by following His commands, thus attaining peace, both internal and external. Even on our forum we have dozens of converts.
Well its good that millions of ppls are realizing the truth of Islam and following the commands of ALLAH. But I m really yet to see some group of ppls who are doing that. I too know some hindu converts, but they only converted coz they wanted to do adultry outside of marriage and Indian laws didnt permit them to do so. So they had to embrace Islam to marry again to ditch their first wife. If ur claims of millions converting and submitting to the path of ALLAH, in the moment we speak, is true than I m sure that very soon we are going to see good effects of this, Inshallah.

In fact brother, I was adviced to read holy quran and to know islam by a very close friend of mine who wanted me to convert to Islam. And I did this for her, ie tried to know about Islam. but couldnt believe. Reasons were many. Like the claim of ALLAH that he has made muslims the best Ummah in the world. I suspect this claim. I sincerely wish that ur claim reggarding new muslims are true so that very soon we can see the good effects on the society and world.

I explained. Islam is something that is learned and studied as a subject. Islam is not a school, math is not a school, science is not a school. These are all things that are taught in school
Brother a religion is a school which gives us lessons to shape up our future and morale. Religion is not only something to learn. Religion is something which is supposed to make us humans good human beings. And the moment it starts proving to be counter productive than it is bound to come under a scanner.

It is true that many have left the path of peace achieved through submission to God and they are no longer following God's commands. But it is also true that God is replacing them with people better than them who are willing to submit to God and love His path.
If it is true than isnt it logical and binding on a muslim scholer that when he speaks starting from Bismillah than he should not speak lies about the number of ppls who follow the path of peace achieved through submission of GOD. When some prominent muslim scholer claims in the name of ALLAH that today there are 1400 million ppls who are following the path of peace achieved through submission to GOD than obviously he is lying and commiting a sin, dont u agree?

The political teachings of the religion are not being implemented in the world, but that doesn't mean that the other teachings are not.
Brother plz permit me to call it yet another wrong statement from U. Is refraining from interest is political teaching of islam? How many countries U know where interest is not permissible? There are many many more non-political teachings which are not being implemented.


In the event of a new Islamic gov't and a new war breaks out, God forbid, there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, anyone who is captured comes under the jurisdiction of the Islamic gov't and not the soldiers. The Islamic government has to look at what is best for the collective state. Since resources and institutions would be able available to imprison prisoners, there is no reason why the gov't would attempt to re-institute slavery, especially when it has been abolished on a global level. Such actions would not serve any purpose.
Well brother although U have advocated ur cause very well still U just fall short of being reasonable. I must emphasize on that the best option for the Islamic government in any such situation will be to abide by holy quran and hadiths. I admit that ur personal views are very noble one in this regard, but i suspect whether the men in the saddle will think the way U think. And precedents too are not going them to allow to deal with PoWs the way U propose. Furter I dont think that Islamic state will take its decisions according to global situations and not its own precedents.

Secondly, if you want to attribute something to Dr. Naik, please provide a quote and we can discuss it.
Right brother, I m going to start a new therad very soon where we can discuess the quotes of Dr. Naik and other issues which will arise. But only after taking ur permission.

The atheist would ask, "Why does God permit such evil things to occur?"

Just like you asked me, "Why did God permit slavery to develop?"
Brother I have something to complain. U quote my words in pieces according to ur choice. Almost all of ur posts are example of it. ie quoting my words out of context and in parts. I never asked u such thing like why did GOD permit slavery to develop? So U cant draw parreral with what athiest would ask,using my words. Let me remind u my question again. I asked U that,

And u are frequently ignoring my question that why Islam didnt prohibited slavery while it flourished under it? From the time of Prophet Adam to Prophet Muhammad (saw). Why it allowd this menace become so deep rooted? Had ALLAH considered slavery as an evil he would had taken measures in his earlier commands he revealed to the earlier prophets of islam.
This was my exact question brother, that why Islam didnt take any measure when slavery was in the process of being deep rooted in the society. If u didnt understand my question let me again try. When ALLAH revealed the commands to the earlier prophets of Islam then why he never made this inhuman practice as unlawful? I m only talking about any commands from ALLAH and not any action from him against those who enslaved ppls. Like the atheists. I hope now I can make u understand.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-04-2006, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
If ur claims of millions converting and submitting to the path of ALLAH, in the moment we speak, is true than I m sure that very soon we are going to see good effects of this, Inshallah.
Inshaa'Allah, but the biggest obstacle to that is the negative propaganda and slander that is being spread about Islam, reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda campaign against the Jews prior to the holocaust.

Like the claim of ALLAH that he has made muslims the best Ummah in the world.
Please cite the verse and then we can discuss.

Brother a religion is a school which gives us lessons to shape up our future and morale.
Religion is not a person or group of people that teach. Religion, or specifically Islam, is what is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Qur'an and Sunnah don't suddenly come in the form of teachers and teach themselves to us. You need to create education institutions to bring the knowledge of islam to the people.

Suppose we have two Islamic schools. One of them is providing students with excellent education, giving them the tools to analyze and implement the Islamic laws, and becoming an active contributor to society, with a balanced personality. The other school simply makes students memorize arabic phrases that they don't understand. If we make a judgement, we will be judging the quality of the schools, NOT Islam. In order to judge Islam, you have to go to the original sources and analyze what the religion teaches.

If it is true than isnt it logical and binding on a muslim scholer that when he speaks starting from Bismillah than he should not speak lies about the number of ppls who follow the path of peace achieved through submission of GOD. When some prominent muslim scholer claims in the name of ALLAH that today there are 1400 million ppls who are following the path of peace achieved through submission to GOD than obviously he is lying and commiting a sin, dont u agree?
To say that there are 1.4/1.6 billion Muslims in the world is not a lie, but merely giving the people the benefit of the doubt. In this context we are discussing how many people outwardly profess to be Muslims, but every scholar agrees that we cannot objectively state how many people are actually submitting in their hearts to Allah.

Brother plz permit me to call it yet another wrong statement from U. Is refraining from interest is political teaching of islam? How many countries U know where interest is not permissible? There are many many more non-political teachings which are not being implemented.
Most Muslims that I know do not take interest, so yes this teaching is being implemented. Just because the governments are not implementing it does not mean it isn't. Many people are implementing it.

Well brother although U have advocated ur cause very well still U just fall short of being reasonable. I must emphasize on that the best option for the Islamic government in any such situation will be to abide by holy quran and hadiths. I admit that ur personal views are very noble one in this regard, but i suspect whether the men in the saddle will think the way U think.
The Islamic state is buuilt on shura (consultation), not dictatorship. And the Islamic guidelines are also very clear for people.
And precedents too are not going them to allow to deal with PoWs the way U propose. Furter I dont think that Islamic state will take its decisions according to global situations and not its own precedents.
Let's talk about Islamic precedents.
Thumaamah ibn Athaal – the leader of Bani Haneefah – was brought (to Madeenah) as a prisoner and tied to one of the pillars of the mosque. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to him and said, “What do you think, O Thumaamah?” He said, “What I think, O Muhammad, is good. If you kill me, you will kill one with blood on his hands – i.e., I will deserve to be killed because I have killed Muslims – and if you release me you will release one who will be grateful. If you want money, then ask, and I will give you whatever you want.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left him for three days, and each day he would come and ask him similar questions, and Thumaamah would give similar answers. After the third day, he commanded that he should be released. Thumaamah went to a stand of date-palms near the mosque where he bathed (did ghusl), then he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.” Then he said: “O Messenger of Allaah, by Allaah there was no one on earth whose face was more hateful to me than yours, but now your face is the most beloved of all faces to me. By Allaah, there was no religion that was more hateful to me than your religion, but now your religion has become the most beloved of all religions to me. By Allaah, there was no land more hateful to me than your land, but now your land has become the most beloved to me. Your cavalry captured me when I was on my way to perform ‘Umrah, so what do you think I should do?”

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) congratulated him, and told him to go for ‘Umrah. When he came to Makkah, someone asked him, “Have you changed your religion?” He said, “No, but I have submitted with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by Allaah you will not get a grain of wheat from al-Yamaamah unless the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gives permission.”

Think about this story, may Allaah bless you, and how the kind treatment of Thumaamah led to his embracing Islam, which could not have happened were it not primarily by the grace of Allaah, and also the kind treatment which Thumaamah received.

In the Qur’aan, Allaah says of the righteous (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they give food, in spite of their love for it (or for the love of Him), to the Miskeen (the poor), the orphan, and the captive,

(Saying): ‘We feed you seeking Allaah’s Countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you’”

[al-Insaan 76:8-9]

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: in those days their prisoners were mushrikeen; on the day of Badr the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded them to be kind to their prisoners, so they used to put them before themselves when it came to food… Mujaahid said, this refers to the one who is detained, i.e., they would give food to these prisoners even though they themselves desired it and loved it.”

Right brother, I m going to start a new therad very soon where we can discuess the quotes of Dr. Naik and other issues which will arise. But only after taking ur permission.
Feel free, inshaa'Allah.

Brother I have something to complain. U quote my words in pieces according to ur choice. Almost all of ur posts are example of it. ie quoting my words out of context and in parts. I never asked u such thing like why did GOD permit slavery to develop? So U cant draw parreral with what athiest would ask,using my words. Let me remind u my question again. I asked U that,
And u are frequently ignoring my question that why Islam didnt prohibited slavery while it flourished under it? From the time of Prophet Adam to Prophet Muhammad (saw). Why it allowd this menace become so deep rooted? Had ALLAH considered slavery as an evil he would had taken measures in his earlier commands he revealed to the earlier prophets of islam.
This was my exact question brother, that why Islam didnt take any measure when slavery was in the process of being deep rooted in the society. If u didnt understand my question let me again try. When ALLAH revealed the commands to the earlier prophets of Islam then why he never made this inhuman practice as unlawful? I m only talking about any commands from ALLAH and not any action from him against those who enslaved ppls. Like the atheists. I hope now I can make u understand.
As for the commands, then enslaving free people was always unlawful just as violence was unlawful. When human beings began to indulge in these things against the commands of Allah, some practices became deeply rooted and that is why Islam had to gradually remove it.

Regards
Reply

justahumane
02-05-2006, 10:46 AM
Salam brother Ansar and thanks for reply.

Inshaa'Allah, but the biggest obstacle to that is the negative propaganda and slander that is being spread about Islam, reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda campaign against the Jews prior to the holocaust.
I dont agree brother that any kind of negative propoganda is being spread about Islam. The responsibility for all the bad name, that Islam is getting today, goes to Muslims. They have failed their duty to give their religion a good name. Offcource by their actions. And its not good for a believer to term those things as obstacles. U must realilze that the biggest obstacle in way of a true islamic state is lack of believers......not any propoganda or slander. I hope U correct urself. If I come to this forum and speak out my mind than its not any kind of malaise towards Islam, its out of my belief that Islam is doing no good to society.....both for muslims and for non muslims.

Please cite the verse and then we can discuss.
Brother okay I will cite the verse later, but I m sure that U know what verse I m talking about. Why dont u cite it for me and correct me if I said anything wrong? In fact I read that verse in holy quran and later when I was listening to Dr. Zakir Naik he too quoted that particular verse which says that Muslims are made the best Ummah in the world.

Suppose we have two Islamic schools. One of them is providing students with excellent education, giving them the tools to analyze and implement the Islamic laws, and becoming an active contributor to society, with a balanced personality. The other school simply makes students memorize arabic phrases that they don't understand. If we make a judgement, we will be judging the quality of the schools, NOT Islam. In order to judge Islam, you have to go to the original sources and analyze what the religion teaches.
Hmmm brother, good to know that on few points we have same views. But do U really think that any sincere effort is being done to establish first kind of Islamic shcool anywhere? I have serious doubts. The madaris I see around me are providing the second kind of Islamic education, to students, often laced with hatred for other religions. Do U know that?


To say that there are 1.4/1.6 billion Muslims in the world is not a lie, but merely giving the people the benefit of the doubt. In this context we are discussing how many people outwardly profess to be Muslims, but every scholar agrees that we cannot objectively state how many people are actually submitting in their hearts to Allah.
Brother, I knew that U wont agree that such prominent scholers lie in the name of ALLAH, but I leave this on ur heart. After all ALLAH knows all, no matter whether we agree or disagree. Still I must say that when they start their discource with the name of ALLAH, than they must not say like so much ppls are following the peace achieved through submission of GOD. Its sinful on their part. But again ALLAH knows the best whether I m wrong or right.

Most Muslims that I know do not take interest, so yes this teaching is being implemented. Just because the governments are not implementing it does not mean it isn't. Many people are implementing it.
Brother usually the countries where interest is being implemented are democracies.........and ppls choose government in democracies. It clearly means that majority of ppls are not comfortable with the idea of implementation of Islamic principles. They rather like to choose haram and halal with their own convienience.

Let's talk about
Well brother I again will say that I have no doubt about the noble personality of the Holy Prophet. Still the precedent U quoted for me must not be the only one about him. He might have freed some prisonrs of war, and he might have enslaved some too. Who knows which precedent is going to be followed? both possibilities may be there. dont u agree?

As for the commands, then enslaving free people was always unlawful just as violence was unlawful. When human beings began to indulge in these things against the commands of Allah, some practices became deeply rooted and that is why Islam had to gradually remove it.
I just dismiss ur statement as wrong one brother. Had slavery been declared unlawfull by ALLAH before that, than the holy prophet must not had kept slaves. Could he do anything against the commands of ALLAH? I m sure, NO. A perfect proof that slavery was not declared unlawfull by ALLAH, nor before the holy prophet nor after him.

Thanks.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-05-2006, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
I dont agree brother that any kind of negative propoganda is being spread about Islam.
Islam is being attacked from all forms of media and this is creating a negative perception of Islam in people's minds preventing them from educating themselves to find the truth.

Brother okay I will cite the verse later, but I m sure that U know what verse I m talking about.
I need you to cite the verses specifically sine there may be a few different ones that you are alluding to, and I need to know the exact phrase being discussed. So until then I'll wait for the verses.

Hmmm brother, good to know that on few points we have same views. But do U really think that any sincere effort is being done to establish first kind of Islamic shcool anywhere?
Yes, I have witnessed several new programs and educational institutions being set up in various Muslim communities across the world.

Brother, I knew that U wont agree that such prominent scholers lie in the name of ALLAH, but I leave this on ur heart.
I just gave you the explanation but you ignored it.

Brother usually the countries where interest is being implemented are democracies
Which countries are you thinking of?

Well brother I again will say that I have no doubt about the noble personality of the Holy Prophet.
That's great to hear.

Still the precedent U quoted for me must not be the only one about him.
If you think so, then why don't you do the research and quote for me some other precedent. I'll make it even easier for you:
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html
In the above thread you will find a list of resources on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which you can read and get back to me. I'm sure that once you will read his biography you will agree even more about his noble character, just as others did when they read the Prophet's biography.

I just dismiss ur statement as wrong one brother. Had slavery been declared unlawfull by ALLAH before that, than the holy prophet must not had kept slaves.
As I explained earlier, the Prophet pbuh made it very clear that slavery was undesirable, but given the situation that they lived in, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had to gradually implement steps for the removal of slavery. The first was the Qur'anic declaration of human equality (49:13).

Regards
Reply

Discussor
02-06-2006, 12:18 AM
[QUOTE=Ansar Al-'Adl;175182]Islam is being attacked from all forms of media and this is creating a negative perception of Islam in people's minds preventing them from educating themselves to find the truth.
QUOTE]

Do you not think that examples of behaviour we saw in London over the weekend may contribute to negative perceptions of Islam?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 02:19 AM
Hi Discussor,
Originally Posted by Discussor
Do you not think that examples of behaviour we saw in London over the weekend may contribute to negative perceptions of Islam?
Sure it will, but I find that when we have 1 nutcase calling for terrorist attacks, and 1000 Imaams condemning such a person, the media will focus on the 1 nutcase. For example, how many people heard about Yusuf Islam who recieved the Man of Peace award 2004?
Reply

Mohsin
02-06-2006, 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hi Discussor,

Sure it will, but I find that when we have 1 nutcase calling for terrorist attacks, and 1000 Imaams condemning such a person, the media will focus on the 1 nutcase. For example, how many people heard about Yusuf Islam who recieved the Man of Peace award 2004?

Mashallah thats a very fitting and good point bro, i rememeber they were quick to judge him when he was stopped from entering america,he was all over the news, but no mention on the news when he received a peace award.
Reply

Discussor
02-06-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hi Discussor,

Sure it will, but I find that when we have 1 nutcase calling for terrorist attacks, and 1000 Imaams condemning such a person, the media will focus on the 1 nutcase. For example, how many people heard about Yusuf Islam who recieved the Man of Peace award 2004?
Agreed. But this kind of media isnt exclusive to muslims, its the way the media works, they do it for everything. You shouldnt take it as a witch hunt, but more that this is how the media works unfortunately.

Just look at any famous person in England and you will see that any chance the media gets they will pounce on.

I would also point out that the media shows alot of positivity in the muslim community.

Prince Charles is known to have very good rapport with the muslim community and is always quoted as sayng how much respect he has for your community.

:thumbs_up
Reply

justahumane
02-06-2006, 11:35 AM
Salam brother Ansar,

Islam is being attacked from all forms of media and this is creating a negative perception of Islam in people's minds preventing them from educating themselves to find the truth.
Brother have u ever counted how many innocent lives have been lost by the Islamic jihadis? Both muslims and non muslims? Any sane person can feel that the ppls who are ready to give away their own lives for a cause must not be compared to common killers. I cant just call them bad ppls, but rather religious ones who are ready to give up all the riches and luxury for the cause of ALLAH. Who dont know from where the inspiration is coming for them? Who dont know what dreams they have for themselves when they run a plane into buildings or take little school children hostages, or blow themselves up at a crowded shia mosque?

I need you to cite the verses specifically sine there may be a few different ones that you are alluding to, and I need to know the exact phrase being discussed. So until then I'll wait for the verses.
Very soon Inshallah.

Yes, I have witnessed several new programs and educational institutions being set up in various Muslim communities across the world.
Good to know that brother. If it really works than we should good results very soon Inshallah.

I just gave you the explanation but you ignored it.
Brother U gave me wrong explainaition, when some scholer say in the name of ALLAH that there are 1.4/1.6 billion ppls attaining peace through submission to GOD, than he simply lies..........to avoid this sin he should make it clear that many of them are actually munafiqs who have abandoned the teachings of holy quran. They know in their heart that there are actually very few muslims today. But they simply defend those munafiqs.

Which countries are you thinking of?
Many brother, to name a few......Paksitan, Bengladesh, Egypt, and so on.

If you think so, then why don't you do the research and quote for me some other precedent. I'll make it even easier for you:
[Link only for registered members]
In the above thread you will find a list of resources on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which you can read and get back to me. I'm sure that once you will read his biography you will agree even more about his noble character, just as [Link only for registered members] did when they read the Prophet's biography.
I will follow ur advice brother. But regarding precedents U urself gave some precedent in the earlier part of this thread when the holy prophet distributed some captives to the companions, offcource as slaves. Plz see ur earlier quote.

In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Madinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions (rta). Since at that time, the prohibition of slavery was passing through the interim period when it was still intact for reasons stated earlier, the Prophet (sws) accepted the right of masters to have sexual intercourse with the slave women as was the international law at that time but set about taking steps that could prevent this from actually happening
Brother I see no reason why this precedent would not be followed by the Islamic state. Coz I know how much hatred good muslims have for kafirs. And understandably so.

As I explained earlier, the Prophet pbuh made it very clear that slavery was undesirable, but given the situation that they lived in, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had to gradually implement steps for the removal of slavery. The first was the Qur'anic declaration of human equality (49:13).
Brother we are talking of slavery being made unlawful by ALLAH, U know better than me that there is vast difference between unlawful and undesirable. And the holy prophet himself having slaves is perfect proof that slavery was never declared as evil by ALLAH.

Sorry brother there is always so much to write on this subject but time hardly allows. But its always next time.

Thanks.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
02-06-2006, 04:16 PM
:sl: wr wb
Brother Ansar you haven't answered my question:(.
:w::rose::peace:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Fenix-Angel
:sl:
Bro Ansar, something came across my mind. In the Qur'an when it speaks of 'those whom your right hand posess'..... what does this mean?
:sl: Sister Fenix-Angel,
Your question has been discussed in great detail in this thread and it is difficult for me to simply repeat what I have already posted and what has been posted by others. I'm sure if you read the entire thread you will obtain a good understanding of the issue, inshaa'Allah. Briefly, ma malakat aymanukum refers to one's servants and relations with one's female servant were socially accepted in arabia at that time. Islam put steps in place to remove slavery beginning with the prohibition to enslave free people and the command to treat servants with gentleness and kindness.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by Discussor
Agreed. But this kind of media isnt exclusive to muslims, its the way the media works, they do it for everything. You shouldnt take it as a witch hunt, but more that this is how the media works unfortunately.

Just look at any famous person in England and you will see that any chance the media gets they will pounce on.
You're right, but unfortunately it seems to have a worse effect for Islam since most people in the west are not well acquainted with Islam's true teachings. The media could definitely take positive steps in educating.
I would also point out that the media shows alot of positivity in the muslim community.

Prince Charles is known to have very good rapport with the muslim community and is always quoted as sayng how much respect he has for your community.

:thumbs_up
That's good to hear, especially from a non-muslim. Thanks for mentioning that. :)

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by justahumane
Brother have u ever counted how many innocent lives have been lost by the Islamic jihadis? Both muslims and non muslims?
I suggest looking at this post where I pointed out the fallacy in such arguments.
Who dont know what dreams they have for themselves when they run a plane into buildings or take little school children hostages, or blow themselves up at a crowded shia mosque?
The reasons behind this are numerous: ignorance, poverty, oppression, desperation.

These people want to change the plight of their people (see earlier link) and they are willing to sacrifice themselves to do so, but unfortunately they have not been taught the correct Islamic teachings.

Brother U gave me wrong explainaition, when some scholer say in the name of ALLAH that there are 1.4/1.6 billion ppls attaining peace through submission to GOD, than he simply lies........
I already explained that in this context people are being given the benefit of the doubt and anyone who calls themselves 'Muslim' are being considered. This is how all country statistics are done.

Many brother, to name a few......Paksitan, Bengladesh, Egypt, and so on.
These are not democracies, they are dictatorships.

I will follow ur advice brother. But regarding precedents U urself gave some precedent in the earlier part of this thread when the holy prophet distributed some captives to the companions, offcource as slaves.
And I explained them in context as well.

Brother we are talking of slavery being made unlawful by ALLAH, U know better than me that there is vast difference between unlawful and undesirable. And the holy prophet himself having slaves is perfect proof that slavery was never declared as evil by ALLAH.
We have confirmed that the Prophet prohibited making free people into slaves. If we note that this prohibition was not new and was maintained by all Prophets it means that slavery could have only been brought about through unlawful means, consequently it was always considered unlawful. In the context of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh he had to gradually remove it.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
02-06-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
We have confirmed that the Prophet prohibited making free people into slaves. If we note that this prohibition was not new and was maintained by all Prophets it means that slavery could have only been brought about through unlawful means, consequently it was always considered unlawful. In the context of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh he had to gradually remove it.
I am sorry but where did you confirm this? If I have followed this thread correctly, you have asserted that Muhammed forbade the enslavement of free people except as prisoners of war. That is not quite the same thing is it?

Also, of course, the child of a slave is surely a slave? Thus a slave is created through entirely legal means.

Why do you think Muhammed had to gradually remove it? First of all, why didn't God simply forbid it like idolatry or eating non-Hallal food? Second, if it was to be removed gradually, why is freeing a slave a standard form of penalty in Islam? Surely God would have allowed another way of redeeming yourself if He foresaw an abolition of slavery?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am sorry but where did you confirm this? If I have followed this thread correctly, you have asserted that Muhammed forbade the enslavement of free people except as prisoners of war. That is not quite the same thing is it?
I explain in great detail, especially in my discussion with Truth Seeker, the reasons behind potential enslavement of war captives.

Why do you think Muhammed had to gradually remove it? First of all, why didn't God simply forbid it like idolatry or eating non-Hallal food?
I have answered this question so many times in the thread before as have other members. Please see the following posts which pretty much sum up the explanation:
http://www.islamicboard.com/127799-post10.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/128648-post18.html

Second, if it was to be removed gradually, why is freeing a slave a standard form of penalty in Islam?
Freeing a slave is a standard for of expiation because Islam intended the removal of slavery. Islam obligated the freeing of a slave at so many points that it was very effective in removing slavery. And Islam has also prescribed other forms of expiation if one cannot find slaves to free (depending on the sin) there is fasting, feeding the poor, etc.
Surely God would have allowed another way of redeeming yourself if He foresaw an abolition of slavery?
There are other ways, such as those I have mentioned like fasting, feeding a certain amount of poor people, etc.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
02-07-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I explain in great detail, especially in my discussion with Truth Seeker, the reasons behind potential enslavement of war captives.
May I take that as acknowledgement that Muslims were traditionally allowed to take slaves during raids?

Would this be what you mean?

As for war, this was explained earlier in this thread. No soldier was EVER allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced upon in war. Any captives obtained in war were turned over to the Islamic gov't which decided they're fate. This included the following options:
-ransoming captives or trading trading them for muslim prisoners of war captured by the enemy
-often freed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh if they could teach ten Muslims to read/write
-since the Islamic state did not have institutions or resources to shelter and take care of so many prisoners of war, they were entrusted to various families as servants. Slavery was the norm for prisoners of war but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh mandated that they be treated properly and not abused.
I have a few problems with that as far as I understand Islam's early history. Why weren't they allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced on in war? This is in fact what Muslims have traditionally done - were they wrong to? Turned them over to the Islamic government? Are you sure? Didn't they just turn over the Royal Fifth?

I agree that they could be held for ransom. You quoted from Sahih Bukhari 3:34:430, but two down Bukhari 3:34:432 clearly shows that Muslims took captives and held them hostage for ransom.

But the traditional terminology used to describe these people is not "servant" but "slave". This is how it has always been translated. Why do you use "servant"? Mandated proper treatment - the problem that I have is that I think I have different ideas of what proper treatment amounts to. Could you explain what that proper treatment consisted of? For instance, do you doubt the authenticity of the hadith from Bukhari I mentioned above?

Freeing a slave is a standard for of expiation because Islam intended the removal of slavery. Islam obligated the freeing of a slave at so many points that it was very effective in removing slavery. And Islam has also prescribed other forms of expiation if one cannot find slaves to free (depending on the sin) there is fasting, feeding the poor, etc.
Except it is likely that freeing a slave as expiation created a demand in the Islamic world for slaves. You see this is China where the Buddhists try to set free a small bird every year. So every year people go out to trap lots and lots of small birds in order to sell them to people who want to set them free. They create a market. Wouldn't it have been more effective - as with major sins like idolatry and haram food - just to ban it? Very effective in removing it? Why do you think that?
Reply

justahumane
02-07-2006, 10:41 AM
Salam brother Ansar,

I suggest looking at [Link only for registered members] where I pointed out the fallacy in such arguments
Brother the following is the text of what U had to say.

If we wanted to talk about atrocities perpetrated against Muslims, we'd be here forever. We can talk about the some 30 000 civilians killed from the invasion in Iraq, concerning which experts say "most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.". Or we can talk about the 28 masacres of palestinian Muslims. Or maybe let's talk about the 360 000 Muslims executed in China and the torture of Imaams. Or the "Many old and weak Tibetan Muslims as well as children that died of starvation". And we haven't even begun looking at Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia or Kosovo either
Brother, first of all I must tell U that killing is a killing, no matter whether its muslim or non muslim, at the end of day its always some innocent creation of GOD. Regarding killing of Iraqis, we must all condemn it coz those killed were humans.................but in Iraq, what I fail to understand, why no muslim tear trickled down the cheeks when Saddam was killing and brutalizing muslims for 3 decades? When he was gassing Kurds? when he was crushing shias? when his pchychopath sons were raping at will?

I remember in India, once government banned mourning for shias sensing some shia sunni riots. I saw truckloads of shia men, women, and even children beating their chest, shouting Ya Hasan slogans, getting them arrested in protest against such orders. And similar orders were imposed in Iraq too during. But no shia dared to mourn. One can imagine how brutally Saddam must have got those no mourning orders imposed. But then it was all okay for the muslim world. But when America raided Iraq, all hell broke loose for muslim world, suddenly they develpoed sympathy for their muslim bretherns in Iraq, what an example of hypocricy?................does it hurt anything less when muslims kill muslims?

Now lets talk Kashmir. Kashmiris enjoys a great amount of sympathy by Pakistan. Pakistan think that there are over 7 lakhs of Indian hindu soldiers who are brutalizing, killing, and raping pooor kashmiris at will.

Brother Ansar I m sure that U must be knowing that although there are majority of muslims in Kashmir, but there are hindus too called kashmiri pandits. They were living from ages there, with their muslim brothers and sissters. U know that all approx 5 lakh kashmiri hindus are forced to leave their homes by their muslim brothers and sisters. they were killed and raped till they didnt flee their homes. Now which sane person can think that 7 lakh hindu army who are killing at will cant save their lesser number of hindu brethens from leaving their homes? This all happening in India when almost all the states in India except kashmir is hindu dominated. And U are talking about killing of muslims in Kashmir. how sad brother................I never expected this at least from U.

And further brother U havent included killings of muslims in Darfur region of Sudan? Which is supposed to be the biggest genocide. they were muslims too, and u must be knowing who killed them? were they muslims or non muslims? I hope that U dont believe like most muslims that they are given licence to kill from ALLAH.

The reasons behind this are numerous: ignorance, poverty, oppression, desperation.

These people want to change the plight of their people (see earlier link) and they are willing to sacrifice themselves to do so, but unfortunately they have not been taught the correct Islamic teachings.
Well brother I partially agree with U. But see, who is getting most affected by their ignorance? Its humanity only. And as U admitted just now that its wrong islamic lessons which are forcing them to do so. Again comes misinterpretation of holy quran. My point again pops out, can message of ALLAH cause so much damage to mankind? even if misinterpretated? I m sure NO. U are free to differ.

One more question brother, why only muslims? Why US and its allies doesnt massacre muslims on its land? why so that most muslims feel safer in those kufr countries than in their own countries? why so that they even feel more free than their own countries? Why so that America, which is considered to be the enemy of muslims and islam, has a long queue of muslims outside its embassies?

Thanks
Reply

HeiGou
02-07-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by Chuck
Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.
I find it hard to believe I am even reading this. Those slaves would have gone on earning a living the same way anyone else did - by producing goods in the economy. Obviously they are doing something productive of they would not be kept by their masters. The difference is they would get to keep the wages they have earnt instead of being forced to hand some or all over to their masters. The economy might have collapsed, if it is based on slave labor. Good. Slavery is similar to alcohol in that banning it would have put people out of work. Not a bad thing? Care to be my slave then? If paying for domestic labor is not affordable, then clearly the slave is not being paid a living wage - if you cannot afford a servant, but use a slave, the slave must cost less to feed and look after than a servant. It is impossible to reconcile this with human rights. Slaves, by definition, are not treated with respect. They are beaten. And they would not be happy if they do not have the right to leave if they are treated rudely, or are offered better wages elsewhere, or want to marry, or do not want to have sex with their masters or whatever. The important thing is the treatment of the person - which is why slavery is worse than being a servant.

There are probably reasons to excuse slavery. But this is merely crassly offensive.
Reply

kadafi
02-07-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I find it hard to believe I am even reading this. Those slaves would have gone on earning a living the same way anyone else did - by producing goods in the economy. Obviously they are doing something productive of they would not be kept by their masters. The difference is they would get to keep the wages they have earnt instead of being forced to hand some or all over to their masters. The economy might have collapsed, if it is based on slave labor. Good. Slavery is similar to alcohol in that banning it would have put people out of work. Not a bad thing? Care to be my slave then? If paying for domestic labor is not affordable, then clearly the slave is not being paid a living wage - if you cannot afford a servant, but use a slave, the slave must cost less to feed and look after than a servant. It is impossible to reconcile this with human rights. Slaves, by definition, are not treated with respect. They are beaten. And they would not be happy if they do not have the right to leave if they are treated rudely, or are offered better wages elsewhere, or want to marry, or do not want to have sex with their masters or whatever. The important thing is the treatment of the person - which is why slavery is worse than being a servant.

There are probably reasons to excuse slavery. But this is merely crassly offensive.
Then clearly you're not well acquainted with the econimcal condition in Middle Ages. Back then, the gap for economic opportunies was very narrow for freedslaves as was independency for a freedslave who didn't posses any property nor was educated. This in turn leads the freedslave going back to his former master and sell his labour in return for economical dependancy. This is also from the Islamic POV as I haven't mentioned the economical disasters in Americas slavery but then again, I wouldn't justify the slavery in Americas and the cruel treatment that they had to endure. I hope such part of history never repeats itself.

Your definition of slaves is what any historian refers to as western definition. The Islamic definition is the same as the definition of a servant. I suppose the humane treatment, the ability to achieve great ranks, etc, has been already mentioned.

I have to say that Roger Du Pasquier sums it best in his book 'Unveiling Islam':


To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- 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.

It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.

There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.

There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'

To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives.

Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances -- a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.

Besides domestic slavery, which was generally imbued with a patriarchal character, there also existed a form of military slavery, which was frequently employed by princes in need of recruits, especially for their personal guards. This situation had the effect of conferring an often considerable influence and power on men of servile condition or origin, and some of these became the founders of great and illustrious dynasties such as the Tulunids and Mamlukes of Egypt.

The object of a prosperous commercial sector, which under the Abbasid Empire was often the speciality of non-Muslims, particularly Byzantine and Venetian Christians, and Jews, slavery gradually declined in importance until, at the beginning of the present century, it was confined to a few survivals which have now disappeared entirely. Thanks to the strict traditional controls which have always regulated the practice, it would be difficult to deny that social conditions were remarkably humane during the great periods of Muslim civilization, and that these, moreover, were in conformity with the 'egalitarian' spirit of Islam, which, in a hadith, teaches that 'the blackest of Abyssinians' is superior to most noble of Qurai****es, if he has more faith
Reply

Chuck
02-07-2006, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I find it hard to believe I am even reading this. Those slaves would have gone on earning a living the same way anyone else did - by producing goods in the economy... Obviously they are doing something productive of they would not be kept by their masters. The difference is they would get to keep the wages they have earnt instead of being forced to hand some or all over to their masters.
It is not easy to create jobs and reduce unemployment even in modern economic system, and it is very difficult regarding unskilled labor. Let's look at the issue more deeply: what goods they could have produced in that economy and with their skills, who have hired them, and where they would have obtained the capital to start their own business if most of them couldn't find a job?

Br. kadafi explained it more clearly.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
Care to be my slave then?
Yea sure, if the economy goes into depression and I can't find a paying job... but only on Islamic standards.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
It is impossible to reconcile this with human rights. Slaves, by definition, are not treated with respect. They are beaten. And they would not be happy if they do not have the right to leave if they are treated rudely, or are offered better wages elsewhere, or want to marry, or do not want to have sex with their masters or whatever. The important thing is the treatment of the person - which is why slavery is worse than being a servant.
A servant can be treated as bad as your definition of slave, on the other hand, slave can be kept better than your definition of servant... changing labels doesn't make a difference - and Islam didn't came to change labels, it came to change people.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-07-2006, 07:53 PM
Hello HeiGou,
Originally Posted by HeiGou
May I take that as acknowledgement that Muslims were traditionally allowed to take slaves during raids?
I have explained that tribes in that time used to enslave those whom they defeated in battle. Yet Islam intended to remove slavery. The question was what was to be done with the captives? Ideally, they would be kept in some form of secure holding like a prison and taken care of from there (in fact that is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did with captives like Thumamah). However, the Muslims did not possess either the institutions nor the resources to shelter and take care of such a vast number of captives. The solution was to entrust captives to families as servants, yet maintain good treatment of such people.

I have a few problems with that as far as I understand Islam's early history. Why weren't they allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced on in war?
The captives were first tunred over to the Islamic state so that it coulde ensure that the decision was in the best interests of the state and that the captives were not abused, as it is categorically forbidden according to Islamic law:
http://www.islamicboard.com/depth-is...war-islam.html
This is in fact what Muslims have traditionally done
No. In the time of the Islamic states, captives were always turned over to the state.

You quoted from Sahih Bukhari 3:34:430, but two down Bukhari 3:34:432 clearly shows that Muslims took captives and held them hostage for ransom.
I already mentioned that. One of the options for the Islamic state is that prisoners of war may be released in exchange for Muslim prisoners or ransomed.

But the traditional terminology used to describe these people is not "servant" but "slave". This is how it has always been translated. Why do you use "servant"?
As was mentioned earlier by Br. Chuck, the important point is the treatment of these people. Since Islam mandated good treatment, the word servant is actually more appropriate as opposed to slave, the latter implying some mistreatment.
Mandated proper treatment - the problem that I have is that I think I have different ideas of what proper treatment amounts to.
Nothing is left up to what people think. Very clear measures have been laid down in the hadith:

They (the slaves) are your brothers and servants. Allah has placed them under your authority. So whoever's brother is under his authorty, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears. And do not burden them with what is too much for them. And if you give them some burdensome task, then help them with it. (Sahîh Muslim)

Whoever strikes his slave or beats him, then his expiation is to free him. (Sahîh Muslim)

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh commanded Muslims to give their servants even the same food and the same clothes that they wear. If someone does this, how can they feel any superiority over such a person?

Except it is likely that freeing a slave as expiation created a demand in the Islamic world for slaves.
No it did not because as I explained to you freeing a slave was not the only form of expiation. Today, slavery is almost non-existant yet Muslims do not have any problems with expiation because there are other alternatives.

You see this is China where the Buddhists try to set free a small bird every year.
The problem with this analogy is that Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people. So the only way more slaves can be taken is if a war was undertaken by the whole Islamic state and even then there is no assurance for someone that they will be entrusted with one of the captives, even if any captives are taken and are left over after exchanging and ransoming.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
The economy might have collapsed, if it is based on slave labor.
You're right, and it would have hurt everyone including the slaves. The difference between slavery and the prohibition of alcohol is that slaves are people who would be hurt if they had no one to take care of them, but alcohol is an inanimate substance.

But in fact, Islam has actually put in a system that allows for any servants who desire freedom to not only be released, but provided with money to help them in their future. Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Jaza'iry explains with reference to the Qur'an:
Islam orders making an agreement to facilitate a slave in buying back his freedom if he requests such an agreement, and it encourages helping him in that with shares or wealth. Allah the Almighty said:
And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation) give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. (24:33)
(Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2, p.551)
This makes it very clear that Islam allowed for rapid removal of slavery through its effective methods of freeing slaves, raising their status to that of their masters and restricting the sources of slavery.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-07-2006, 08:01 PM
Looks like Br. Kadafi and Br. Chuck beat me to it!

Anyway, I'll move on to justahumane's post.
Originally Posted by justahumane
Brother, first of all I must tell U that killing is a killing, no matter whether its muslim or non muslim, at the end of day its always some innocent creation of GOD.
Agreed.
Regarding killing of Iraqis, we must all condemn it coz those killed were humans.................but in Iraq, what I fail to understand, why no muslim tear trickled down the cheeks when Saddam was killing and brutalizing muslims for 3 decades?
Who said 'no Muslims'? The spotlight fallacy once again.

But then it was all okay for the muslim world.
Not at all. Saddam is despised as a despotic dictator all over the Muslim world.

I hope that U dont believe like most muslims that they are given licence to kill from ALLAH.
Of course Muslims don't believe that. We condemn such atrocities.

My point again pops out, can message of ALLAH cause so much damage to mankind? even if misinterpretated? I m sure NO.
Misinterpretation changes the message completely, so it can no longer expect the same success.

Why so that America, which is considered to be the enemy of muslims and islam, has a long queue of muslims outside its embassies?
I never denied that.

Since we are not talking about slavery anymore, I will assume that you are now satisfied with this topic and if you would like to move on to discuss the world situation we can do so in a different thread.

Regards
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
02-08-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl: Sister Fenix-Angel,
Your question has been discussed in great detail in this thread and it is difficult for me to simply repeat what I have already posted and what has been posted by others. I'm sure if you read the entire thread you will obtain a good understanding of the issue, inshaa'Allah. Briefly, ma malakat aymanukum refers to one's servants and relations with one's female servant were socially accepted in arabia at that time. Islam put steps in place to remove slavery beginning with the prohibition to enslave free people and the command to treat servants with gentleness and kindness.

:w:
:sl: wr wb
oh.... ok. Jazak-Allahu khayran.
:w::rose::peace:
Reply

HeiGou
02-08-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Then clearly you're not well acquainted with the econimcal condition in Middle Ages. Back then, the gap for economic opportunies was very narrow for freedslaves as was independency for a freedslave who didn't posses any property nor was educated. This in turn leads the freedslave going back to his former master and sell his labour in return for economical dependancy. This is also from the Islamic POV as I haven't mentioned the economical disasters in Americas slavery but then again, I wouldn't justify the slavery in Americas and the cruel treatment that they had to endure. I hope such part of history never repeats itself.
I suspect I am fairly well acquainted with economic conditions back then. It is not necessarily true that economic opportunities for freed slaves were limited. It depends on the time and place. Some periods were periods of great economic expansion. Some were not. It does not follow that slaves did not have property or an education. Many slaves were educated - hence the rule that if they taught ten Muslims to read they should be freed. After all the bedouin were coming out of the desert and attacking older centers of civilisation and so you would expect educated slaves. And many had real property - Islamic law, and correct me if I am wrong, allows a slave to buy himself. This is not possible unless they had money to do so. Islamic law assumes that a freed slave would be dependent on his master. To some extent it enforces it because a master is responsible for the freedslave's diya and gets a part of his estate when he dies. But the bottom lines remains, why would someone keep a slave if they could hire a servant? The only reason is because it costs less to force someone to do a job badly, as opposed to hiring someone to do it well. Which means the price of labor for free men is pushed down as well. And it also means slaves are not treated well.

Your definition of slaves is what any historian refers to as western definition. The Islamic definition is the same as the definition of a servant. I suppose the humane treatment, the ability to achieve great ranks, etc, has been already mentioned.
The humane treatment is a religious obligation and to a lesser extent a legal one, but it was in the West as well. Islamic slavery has been mixed. On the one hand Muslims invented the plantation system the Spanish took to the Americas - and the Black slaves in Iraq rose in revolt they were treated so badly. On the other the Mamluks ruled Egypt. In either case they are not servants. They cannot quit. They cannot demand more wages. They cannot change employers or go home. They can be beaten.

I have to say that Roger Du Pasquier sums it best in his book 'Unveiling Islam':

To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression.
I do not deny the attempt at alleviation - but of course that can only go so far without suppressing the institution. By definition slavery involves treating humans like cattle, dragging them from their homes and families and forcing them to do work they would not otherwise do. But the progressive suppression? Where is the evidence for this?

To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone.
It is odd that you quote a non-Muslim, or at least a Westerner. Of course God knew it would be abolished. And if God wanted to tell Muslims to do so, He could have. The countries around the Muslims also worship idols. Yet that was abolished. They also ate haram foods. A lot of things were generally practiced. And yet many of them were abolished.

It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- 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.
Which is true of Islam's enemies too. How would they have been at a great disadvantage?

It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.
Actually I think that is unfair to the Romans. By the late Empire Roman laws on slavery look a lot like Islamic laws to me.
Reply

HeiGou
02-08-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I have explained that tribes in that time used to enslave those whom they defeated in battle.
I am sorry to keep on at this, but I think it is important. Therefore it is the case that Muslims could enslave the women and children of those they were at war with?

Yet Islam intended to remove slavery. The question was what was to be done with the captives? Ideally, they would be kept in some form of secure holding like a prison and taken care of from there (in fact that is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did with captives like Thumamah). However, the Muslims did not possess either the institutions nor the resources to shelter and take care of such a vast number of captives. The solution was to entrust captives to families as servants, yet maintain good treatment of such people.
Well perhaps the situation could have been avoided by not taking so many prisoners by not going to war quite so often?

I still reject the word "servant" given they could be bought and sold.

And I am extremely dubious about "good treatment". To ask the question again, could Muslims who took women prisoner have sex with them even if they did not intend to marry them and they did not ask their permission?

The hadith from Bukhari is
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
The captives were first tunred over to the Islamic state so that it coulde ensure that the decision was in the best interests of the state and that the captives were not abused, as it is categorically forbidden according to Islamic law:
I notice that the description of the treatment handed out after the capture of Khaybar as "non-serious" odd. The account I read said that a fire was kindled on his chest. But that is not important.

I will not argue over that "turned over". From what I have read, the booty was divided up fairly among all the men who took part in the raid. If that is what you mean, I will not argue.

I already mentioned that. One of the options for the Islamic state is that prisoners of war may be released in exchange for Muslim prisoners or ransomed.
I would not argue with that. It is an option. How about the poor who could not afford to ransom their women?

As was mentioned earlier by Br. Chuck, the important point is the treatment of these people. Since Islam mandated good treatment, the word servant is actually more appropriate as opposed to slave, the latter implying some mistreatment.
Actually I think the important point is the conditions under which they are kept. You can demand that people treat their slaves well in the same way you can demand people treat their pets well. But the difference is that a man is a thinking creature and knows what freedom is - any captivity is cruel if it denies freedom and choice. The mistreatment is implicit. Let me ask a simple question to illustrate the point - if a "servant" wished to go home, or change jobs or marry whomever he chose, could he in Islam?

Nothing is left up to what people think. Very clear measures have been laid down in the hadith:
Which good Muslims should obey. Perhaps. It is noticable that they did not all the time. I'll grant that a slave girl who was burnt on the face with a red hot iron won her freedom. But the African slaves in Iraq rose because they were treated so badly.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh commanded Muslims to give their servants even the same food and the same clothes that they wear. If someone does this, how can they feel any superiority over such a person?
First of all it is clear that this rule was not widely observed. Second the exercise of power can be subtle. It does not need obvious statements. The fact that slavery involves the consistent exercise of power by one over another person is enough for superiority.

No it did not because as I explained to you freeing a slave was not the only form of expiation. Today, slavery is almost non-existant yet Muslims do not have any problems with expiation because there are other alternatives.
Are those alternatives commanded and in the Quran or the work of scholars who have had to work out what to do in the absence of slaves?

The problem with this analogy is that Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people. So the only way more slaves can be taken is if a war was undertaken by the whole Islamic state and even then there is no assurance for someone that they will be entrusted with one of the captives, even if any captives are taken and are left over after exchanging and ransoming.
Islam has not, from what I can see, forbidden the enslavement of free people. It has forbidden it in times of peace. You may enslave in times of war. And of course through birth to a slave mother. The decision on the distribution of the booty is, surely, the responsibility of the commander - if he says that everyone can keep whatever they catch, isn't that permissible and a guarantee?

You're right, and it would have hurt everyone including the slaves.
I do not agree with that. It is not a hurt to be freed.

The difference between slavery and the prohibition of alcohol is that slaves are people who would be hurt if they had no one to take care of them, but alcohol is an inanimate substance.
Except the makers of alcohol are now faced with finding work as well. Slaves do not need people to take care of them. If they did, they would not be kept. Their owners must get a benefit from them or they would sell them. There is no reason to think they could not go on getting a benefit after being freed. Do you know of any example of a slave in all of Islamic history who refused to be freed?

But in fact, Islam has actually put in a system that allows for any servants who desire freedom to not only be released, but provided with money to help them in their future. Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Jaza'iry explains with reference to the Qur'an:
Islam orders making an agreement to facilitate a slave in buying back his freedom if he requests such an agreement, and it encourages helping him in that with shares or wealth. Allah the Almighty said:
And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation) give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. (24:33)
(Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2, p.551)
This makes it very clear that Islam allowed for rapid removal of slavery through its effective methods of freeing slaves, raising their status to that of their masters and restricting the sources of slavery.
I find that an odd interpretation of that passage. Far from being freed with money, it says that slaves should be allowed to work hard to save up enough money to buy themselves from their master - the same rule as in the late Roman Empire and the Latin American states (Brazil even added a rider that the price was to be no more than they cost - I notice nothing here says that an owner cannot charge what he likes). The money flows from the slave to the owner, not from the owner to the slave. Sure they are encouraged to give the slaves something. But only something. It is not clear that Islam rapidly removed slavery - because it did not - although it may have allowed for its rapid removal if that is what owners desired. It is not enough to free slaves, you also have to stop creating them at the same time. At no time was there a lack of slaves in any Muslim country I know of - perhaps you can tell me of one. And, again correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave in Islam is not the equal of a free man. He is a malwa and as such has lesser and fewer rights than a free man.

I do not mind the claim that Islamic slavery was not as bad as American slavery. But to call slaves "servants is offensive.
Reply

HeiGou
02-08-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Chuck
It is not easy to create jobs and reduce unemployment even in modern economic system, and it is very difficult regarding unskilled labor. Let's look at the issue more deeply: what goods they could have produced in that economy and with their skills, who have hired them, and where they would have obtained the capital to start their own business if most of them couldn't find a job?
What makes you think the slaves were unskilled? The early Muslims attacked people who were getting by and making a living. Many of them were enslaved and taken elsewhere. By and large it was the bedouin who attacked older centers of civilisation - Egypt, Iraq, Rome and Persia. These people had real skills the tribesmen of the desert did not. It is the owners who were usually unskilled and the slaves who were not. They could have produced the same goods they produced as slaves - they were not field hands as in America. They were usually urban workers. The people who would have bought a slave could have hired them.

Yea sure, if the economy goes into depression and I can't find a paying job... but only on Islamic standards.
So I can beat you? And force you to move to another country where you do not speak the language and work at a task that I set for you? Fine.

A servant can be treated as bad as your definition of slave, on the other hand, slave can be kept better than your definition of servant... changing labels doesn't make a difference - and Islam didn't came to change labels, it came to change people.
A servant cannot be in practice because the servant can leave and find another job. Servants, in the West at least where they are allowed to keep their passports and can travel without their employer's permission, do not put up with that sort of treatment. Slaves have no choice. How can a slave be kept better than a servant? A servant can quit. A servant can move. A servant can get married when he wants. I agree changing labels does not make a difference - which is why calling slaves servants amounts to nothing. And to change people you have to change the circumstances they find themselves in - if they can make money oppressing the weak, they will. You need to remove their ability to make money by oppressing people. By freeing the slaves for instance.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-08-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am sorry to keep on at this, but I think it is important. Therefore it is the case that Muslims could enslave the women and children of those they were at war with?
As mentioned earlier, captives came under the authority of the state, and in the absence of proper institutions to shelter so many captives, they were entrusted to families.
Well perhaps the situation could have been avoided by not taking so many prisoners by not going to war quite so often?
Every single military expedition, without exception, was undertaken as a necessity as the surrounding arabian tribs sought to crush the new Muslim state and wife it off the face of the planet. War was always used as a last resort. In the conquest of Makkah, they Prophet Muhammad pbuh entered Makkah with a large army and he had the option to enslave its citizens who had persecuted him and his followers years before, but he pardoned them all.

I still reject the word "servant" given they could be bought and sold.
You have conveniently failed to comment on the authentic hadith I quoted such as:
Whoever strikes his slave or beats him, then his expiation is to free him. (Sahîh Muslim)

You seem to ignore the point that slaves cannot be beaten or else they must be freed.

And I am extremely dubious about "good treatment".
I quoted you authentic hadith on the subject.

To ask the question again, could Muslims who took women prisoner have sex with them even if they did not intend to marry them and they did not ask their permission?
Since Muslims are commanded not to hit their servants or abuse them, when a female servant is entrusted to their family they must ensure that she is taken care of. Relations with one's female servants were accepted just as relations with one's wife.

I notice that the description of the treatment handed out after the capture of Khaybar as "non-serious" odd. The account I read said that a fire was kindled on his chest. But that is not important.
Please support you arguments by quoting authentic hadith otherwise they will be dismissed as unsubstantiated allegations on your part.

How about the poor who could not afford to ransom their women?
If the prisoners were neither ransomed nor exchanged for Muslim prisoners, then the only logical option left is for them to be maintained by the Muslims as explained earlier.

Actually I think the important point is the conditions under which they are kept. You can demand that people treat their slaves well in the same way you can demand people treat their pets well.
If someone has to share their clothes and food with their servant then there is no feeling of superiority. Sine you are unable to refute this point I noticed that you claim it is 'clear' that this rule was not widely observed, yet you fail to provide any sources! You intend to use your imagination to respond to the concrete facts I have presented!

Are those alternatives commanded and in the Quran or the work of scholars who have had to work out what to do in the absence of slaves?
A very clear admission that you are ignorant of the subject you are trying to debate. Qur'an 58:3-4 provides the expiation of freeing a slave, and if a person cannot do that they must fast two consecutive months,, and if they cannot do that they must feed 60 poor people. Qur'an 90:12-16 offers similar options. This is just one of many examples.

Islam has not, from what I can see, forbidden the enslavement of free people.
The hadith I quoted ealier refutes this point by explicitly stating that the enslavement of free people is forbidden. The only exception is in war if the Islamic state does not possess the resources or the instituions to shelter the prisoners then they are entrusted to individual Muslim families.
The decision on the distribution of the booty is, surely, the responsibility of the commander - if he says that everyone can keep whatever they catch, isn't that permissible and a guarantee?
The decision is that of the Islamic state under whose authority the prisoners of war fall.

Except the makers of alcohol are now faced with finding work as well.
The makers of alcohol are analogous to the masters of slaves. But there is nothin analogous to the slaves with the alcohol. If the slave is freed he has absolutely no money, no food, no shelter - where is he going to sleep at night? What is he going to eat? How is he going to find immediate emplyment?

I find that an odd interpretation of that passage.
Since you know absolutely nothing of Qur'anic exegesis, your personal opinion in this matter is meaningless. I have quoted for you the authoritative legal tests on this matter, not my personal opinion. The verse clearly states if a slave desires to be freed, then free them and give them some of your wealth to help them.

Let me ask a simple question to illustrate the point - if a "servant" wished to go home, or change jobs or marry whomever he chose, could he in Islam?
As mentioned in the verse, if the servant sought a writing of emancipation, then he should be given it.


And, again correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave in Islam is not the equal of a free man.
You're wrong.

Having read your post I find the majority of your arguments constructed upon personal conjecture and ignorance of the Islamic teachings in many respects, such as expiation. There is also an obstinate refusal on your part to accept the authentic proofs I have used to substantiate my assertions. For example, you write in your post to Chuck:
So I can beat you? And force you to move to another country where you do not speak the language and work at a task that I set for you?
Mention beating even though I showed that according to Islamic law as defined in the hadith from Sahih Muslim, the expiation for striking one's slave is to free them. For some reason, you read that and refuse to acknowledge it!

The irrefutable fact is that Islamic laws restricted the sources of slavery, elevated the status of slaves and mandated good treatment for them. And it obligated the freeing of slaves whenever one was able (Qur'an 90:13).
Reply

HeiGou
02-08-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
As mentioned earlier, captives came under the authority of the state, and in the absence of proper institutions to shelter so many captives, they were entrusted to families.
It is hard to work out if that is agreement with what I said or not. I think it is. May I ask if captives could be bought and sold by those families?

Every single military expedition, without exception, was undertaken as a necessity as the surrounding arabian tribs sought to crush the new Muslim state and wife it off the face of the planet. War was always used as a last resort. In the conquest of Makkah, they Prophet Muhammad pbuh entered Makkah with a large army and he had the option to enslave its citizens who had persecuted him and his followers years before, but he pardoned them all.
Was Mecca taken by force or did it surrender peacefully through negotiation?

I am interested, what was the necesssity of attacking the Romans and Persians? Did they too try to crush the new Muslim state and if so what is the evidence of it?

You have conveniently failed to comment on the authentic hadith I quoted such as:
Whoever strikes his slave or beats him, then his expiation is to free him. (Sahîh Muslim)
Well I have failed because I am uncertain on this issue. I know there are hadith that refer to beating slaves.

For instance Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 68:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:

The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" And Hisham said, "As he beats his slave"

Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2237:

'Umair, the freed slave of Abi'l-Lahm, said: My master commanded me to cut some meat in strips; (as I was doing it) a poor man came to me and I gave him some of it to eat. My master came to know of that, and he beat me. I came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and narrated it to him. He (the Holy Prophet) summoned him and said: Why did you beat him? He (Abi'l-Lahm) said: He gives away my food without being commanded to do so. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) sbid: The reward would be shared by you two.

Malik Muwatta, Malik said, "The binding oath is for example, that a man says that he will not sell his garment for ten dinars, and then he sells it for that, or that he will beat his young slave and then does not beat him, and so on. One does kaffara for making such an oath, and there is no kaffara in rashness."

And an odd one, Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4089:

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).

So I have no idea and am seeking sources on this. Could you please give me a proper reference for the Sahih Muslim hadith?

You seem to ignore the point that slaves cannot be beaten or else they must be freed.
I am afraid I am studying the issue further. It is clear that slaves were beaten and were not freed in the Muslim world.

Since Muslims are commanded not to hit their servants or abuse them, when a female servant is entrusted to their family they must ensure that she is taken care of. Relations with one's female servants were accepted just as relations with one's wife.
So relations with one's servants. May I point out the particular nature of the relations with the captives in this case - no intention of keeping them and no intention of having children with them.

Please support you arguments by quoting authentic hadith otherwise they will be dismissed as unsubstantiated allegations on your part.
I suspect if I looked the only source I would find would be Ibn Ishaq. May I ask what the source is for the "non-serious" treatment? Did he die of it by the way?

If someone has to share their clothes and food with their servant then there is no feeling of superiority. Sine you are unable to refute this point I noticed that you claim it is 'clear' that this rule was not widely observed, yet you fail to provide any sources! You intend to use your imagination to respond to the concrete facts I have presented!
I will continue to point out that superiority does not rest on clothing or food but power. China during the Cultural Revolution looked equal but cadres had power and were almost treated like mini-Gods. I am not using my imagination.

A very clear admission that you are ignorant of the subject you are trying to debate. Qur'an 58:3-4 provides the expiation of freeing a slave, and if a person cannot do that they must fast two consecutive months,, and if they cannot do that they must feed 60 poor people. Qur'an 90:12-16 offers similar options. This is just one of many examples.
I am not trying to debate, but learn and in so far as my competence stretches, and it does not to matters of Islamic law, question.

058.004
YUSUFALI: And if any has not (the wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty indigent ones, this, that ye may show your faith in Allah and His Messenger. Those are limits (set by) Allah. For those who reject (Him), there is a grievous Penalty.
PICKTHAL: And he who findeth not (the wherewithal), let him fast for two successive months before they touch one another; and for him who is unable to do so (the penance is) the feeding of sixty needy ones. This, that ye may put trust in Allah and His messenger. Such are the limits (imposed by Allah); and for disbelievers is a painful doom.
SHAKIR: But whoever has not the means, let him fast for two months successively before they touch each other; then as for him who is not able, let him feed sixty needy ones; that is in order that you may have faith in Allah and His Messenger, and these are Allah's limits, and the unbelievers shall have a painful punishment.

So the Muslim world accepted that people might be too poor to free a slave. Fair enough.

The hadith I quoted ealier refutes this point by explicitly stating that the enslavement of free people is forbidden. The only exception is in war if the Islamic state does not possess the resources or the instituions to shelter the prisoners then they are entrusted to individual Muslim families.
I don't think it does refute the point. As I understand you, Islam does not forbid the enslaving of free people, but allows it only in times of war for enemies. May I ask where is the condition specifically added that the state must lack the institutions to care for them properly?

The makers of alcohol are analogous to the masters of slaves. But there is nothin analogous to the slaves with the alcohol. If the slave is freed he has absolutely no money, no food, no shelter - where is he going to sleep at night? What is he going to eat? How is he going to find immediate emplyment?
He can sleep in the mosque like any other poor Muslim. He can ask for charity from those Muslims who no longer have slaves to free. He can get a job. Presumably no Muslim kept a slave who did not perform some function. Why wouldn't the slave go on doing that? If a weaver, weave. If a baker, bake.

Since you know absolutely nothing of Qur'anic exegesis, your personal opinion in this matter is meaningless. I have quoted for you the authoritative legal tests on this matter, not my personal opinion. The verse clearly states if a slave desires to be freed, then free them and give them some of your wealth to help them.
An interesting response. I did not offer my personal opinion. I pointed out what I thought was the obvious interpretation of those English words. May I ask if the Arabic was not translated correctly?

You're wrong.

Having read your post I find the majority of your arguments constructed upon personal conjecture and ignorance of the Islamic teachings in many respects, such as expiation. There is also an obstinate refusal on your part to accept the authentic proofs I have used to substantiate my assertions.
I am sorry you feel that way, but if I do not understand it is because I do not know. I do not deny my ignorance. I would not be here if I did not think I had something to learn. Nor have I refused authentic proofs.

For example, you write in your post to Chuck:

Mention beating even though I showed that according to Islamic law as defined in the hadith from Sahih Muslim, the expiation for striking one's slave is to free them. For some reason, you read that and refuse to acknowledge it!
Because I cannot find it and there are also clear references to the beating of slaves. I do not know the answer. I have not refused to acknowledge it. I have deferred judgement until I know better and in the meantime pointed out that slavery and beating go together.

The irrefutable fact is that Islamic laws restricted the sources of slavery, elevated the status of slaves and mandated good treatment for them. And it obligated the freeing of slaves whenever one was able (Qur'an 90:13).
Actually I disagree with very little of that. And never have. But "restricting the sources" is not the same as banning enslavement of free people.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
May I ask if captives could be bought and sold by those families?
Slaves could be bought and sold unless it was a female slave who gave birth to a child.
Was Mecca taken by force or did it surrender peacefully through negotiation?
When the Muslim army entered Makkah, the Makkans surrendered.

I am interested, what was the necesssity of attacking the Romans and Persians? Did they too try to crush the new Muslim state and if so what is the evidence of it?
See this fatwa:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

Well I have failed because I am uncertain on this issue. I know there are hadith that refer to beating slaves.
But do any of them permit beating? No. So one one hand we have the explicit prohibition, and therefore we must examine all other material in light of that.
For instance Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 68:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:

The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" And Hisham said, "As he beats his slave"
Does this hadith say that one can beat their slave? No. All we have is the incredulous question as to how someone can sleep with their wife if they beat them like a slave. At best, this would show that before the Prophet pbuh prohibited beating slaves, the arabs used to treat them unjustly.
Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2237:

'Umair, the freed slave of Abi'l-Lahm, said: My master commanded me to cut some meat in strips; (as I was doing it) a poor man came to me and I gave him some of it to eat. My master came to know of that, and he beat me. I came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and narrated it to him. He (the Holy Prophet) summoned him and said: Why did you beat him? He (Abi'l-Lahm) said: He gives away my food without being commanded to do so. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) sbid: The reward would be shared by you two.
This hadith actually supports my arguments and in fact adds to them. Thank you for brining it up. The hadith demonstartes that masters are held accountable if they hit their slaves and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh interrogated the man on behalf of his slave. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh even pointed out that if the slave gives away fodd with permission of the master, both of them would recieve the reward for donating food.
Malik Muwatta, Malik said, "The binding oath is for example, that a man says that he will not sell his garment for ten dinars, and then he sells it for that, or that he will beat his young slave and then does not beat him, and so on. One does kaffara for making such an oath, and there is no kaffara in rashness."
First, this is not a hadith. You are quoting a statement of Malik. Second, it again does not give permission to beat one's slave.
And an odd one, Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4089:

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).
So a man beat his slave, and the Prophet said that God had more authority over the man, i.e. he should be mindful of God in his treatment of others and the man freed the slave. Where in this hadith is permisison given to beat one's slave?

So I have no idea and am seeking sources on this. Could you please give me a proper reference for the Sahih Muslim hadith?
Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2 p. 548. As for the hadith number in Sahih Muslim, the numbers are different depending on different publications of the text.

It is clear that slaves were beaten and were not freed in the Muslim world.
First of all, if we have a clear Islamic law that prohibits beating of slaves and then you find a case of a some Muslims beating their slaves, then who does the blame go on? Definitely not Islam. Here we are discussing Islam's position and whether Islam was just in the laws it placed. To say that such and such a person in this country did this or so and so in that country did that, is irrelevant.

May I point out the particular nature of the relations with the captives in this case - no intention of keeping them and no intention of having children with them.
There is no indication of the former. Why don't we exmaine the historical evidence and find out what really happened with these prisoners? This occurred with the tribe of Al-Mustalaq and the situation is described as follows:
According to the traditions which prevailed at that time both in Arabia and outside, prisoners of war became slaves. This applied both to men and women. Two hundred families of Al-Mustalaq faced slavery as a result of their ill-considered plan to attack the Muslims. It should be emphasized here that such a prospect was not as terrible as one may think today. Slaves in the Muslim state enjoyed all their human rights as fellow human beings to their masters. This was true only in the land of Islam. Islam treats every individual as a human being who is susceptible to be a good servant of God. Hence no one is despised or looked down upon simply because he lacks in forune or bad circumstances.

Freeing a Whole Tribe
The Prophet, however, did not like this prospect for his vanquished enemies. His primary thoughts did not follow the tendencies of kings and emperors. First and foremost, he was a Messenger of God whose task was to save mankind from subjugation to false gods. He did not view the material wealth of the Muslim community as his top priority. He realized that an act of kindness might win over the hearts of yesterday's enemy.
yet the Prophet could not enact special legislation for the tribe of al-Mustalaq. As long as slavery was an international practice, the Muslims could not abolish it unilaterally. If any Muslims were ever taken prisoners in a battle, they would have been enslaved by their enemies. hence enemy prisoners had to be treated likewise. Yet the situation called for immediate action to help al-Mustalaq people before it was too late.
The Prophet played a master stroke which brought about the desired results without any adverse repercussions. Among the women taken prisoner was Barrah, daughter of Al-Hârith, chief of al-Mustalaq. The Prophet took her for himself, granted her freedom from slavery and proposed to her. When she accepted, he married and renamed her Juwayriyyah. When the Muslims realized what the Prophet had done, they felt that they could no longer keep the people of al-Mustalaq as their slaves. The whole tribe were considered relatives of the Prophet now that he had married one of their women. This is in keeping with the tribal traditions of Arabia. So all the Muslims who had slaves from al-Mustalaq voluntarily set them free. The Muslims loved the Prophet more than they loved themselves, therefore it was natural that they did not like to have his relatives as their slaves. Thus Juwayriyyah was celebrated by her tribe as a woman of unparalleled blessings. She was the cause of their change of fortunes from slavery to freedom. Sortly afterwards, many of them embraced Islam. (fn. Ibn Hishâm, op. cit., pp. 307-308. Also, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, op. cit., p. 138/) (Adil Salahi, pp. 405-406)
I suspect if I looked the only source I would find would be Ibn Ishaq.
I cannot accept your evidence from Ibn Ishaq as it is not a hadith compilation and there is no verification of the reports therein. It contains many weak and fabricated narrations, compiled for those later on to evaluate, which they did. Also, the english translations were done by non-muslims and contain many mistranslations.
May I ask what the source is for the "non-serious" treatment? Did he die of it by the way?
What are you referring to?

I will continue to point out that superiority does not rest on clothing or food but power.
When one feeds their slave with the same food they eat and clothes them with the same clothes they wear and stands by their side in prayer, there is no feeling of superiority.

So the Muslim world accepted that people might be too poor to free a slave. Fair enough.
The passage get just as likely be taken to mean, if one does not have a slave to free.

I don't think it does refute the point. As I understand you, Islam does not forbid the enslaving of free people, but allows it only in times of war for enemies. May I ask where is the condition specifically added that the state must lack the institutions to care for them properly?
This is the logical explanation concerning why the Islamic state dealt with prisoners of war in this manner. There was no other option.

He can sleep in the mosque like any other poor Muslim. He can ask for charity from those Muslims who no longer have slaves to free.
So then you admit that this would just create more beggars for no reason since these people could be provided for as they already were.
He can get a job. Presumably no Muslim kept a slave who did not perform some function. Why wouldn't the slave go on doing that? If a weaver, weave. If a baker, bake.
How would one know that these services would be needed by anyone other than his former master?

An interesting response. I did not offer my personal opinion. I pointed out what I thought was the obvious interpretation of those English words.
Where is the contradiction then, between what is mentioned in the verse and what the scholar mentioned before it?

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
02-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Slaves could be bought and sold unless it was a female slave who gave birth to a child.
May I ask if that was a female slave that gave birth to any child or only to those female slaves that gave birth to a child recognised by her owners as his?

So these "servants" are bought and sold.

When the Muslim army entered Makkah, the Makkans surrendered.
But that does not really help me. If I might explain - I understand there is a difference in law between a city that surrenders and a city that is captured. Your statement is sufficiently vague that I cannot tell which it is in the case of Mecca. Would you mind making that a little clearer?

[quote] See this fatwa:
>deletions<The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

Just for my sake, Tabuk is in the far north-west of Saudi Arabia, just opposite Egypt, just a little to the south of the Jordanian border? In other words, inside Roman territory at the time? And Mu'ta was fought in Syria itself?

But do any of them permit beating? No. So one one hand we have the explicit prohibition, and therefore we must examine all other material in light of that.
All of them assume the existence of beating and none of them specifically forbid it. It is odd that an analogy is used so often if it is forbidden. You would not expect Muslims to say "it tastes like wine" because how would they know?

I think I found what I was looking for.

Book 015, Number 4078:

Zadhan Abl Umar reported: I came to Ibn 'Umar as he had granted freedom to a stave. He (the narrator further) said: He took hold of a wood or something like it from the earth and said: It (freedom of a slave) has not the reward evert equal to it, but the fact that I heard Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) say: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.

Book 015, Number 4079:

Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free.

Book 015, Number 4080:

This hadith has been narrated through another chain of transmitters with a slight variation of words.

Book 015, Number 4081:

Mu'awiya b. Suwaid reported: I slapped a slave belonging to us and then fled away. I came back just before noon and offered prayer behind my father. He called him (the slave) and me and said: Do as he has done to you. He granted pardon. He (my father) then said: We belonged to the family of Muqarrin during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him. and had only one slave-girl and one of us slapped her. This news reached Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he said: Set her free. They (the members of the family) said: There is no other servant except she. Thereupon he said: Then employ her and when you can afford to dispense with her services, then set her free.

Book 015, Number 4082:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free. 2097

Book 015, Number 4083:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported: We used to sell cloth in the house of Suwaid b. Muqarrin, the brother of Nu'man b. Muqarrin. There came out a slave-girl, and she said something to a person amongst us, and he slapped her. Suwaid was enraged-the rest of the hadlth is the same.

Book 015, Number 4084:

Suwaid b. Muqarrin reported that he had a slave-girl and a person (one of the members of the family) slapped her, whereupon Suwaid said to him: Don't you know that it is forbidden (to strike the) face. He said: You see I was the seventh one amongst my brothers during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and we had but only one servant. One of us got enraged and slapped him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set him free.

Book 015, Number 4085:

Wahb b. Jarir reported: Shu'ba informed that Muhammad b. Munkadir said to me: What is your name? The rest of the hadith is the same.
I do not agree with your interpretation, as it appears more complex than that to me. But as you are not interested in my interpretation and it will only get me banned I am happy to leave it there.

Does this hadith say that one can beat their slave? No. All we have is the incredulous question as to how someone can sleep with their wife if they beat them like a slave. At best, this would show that before the Prophet pbuh prohibited beating slaves, the arabs used to treat them unjustly.
Indeed. Although an analogy only works if people recognise it as valid.

This hadith actually supports my arguments and in fact adds to them. Thank you for brining it up. The hadith demonstartes that masters are held accountable if they hit their slaves and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh interrogated the man on behalf of his slave. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh even pointed out that if the slave gives away fodd with permission of the master, both of them would recieve the reward for donating food.
Really? The hadith does seem to be about the giving away of food. I did not find anything in it to suggest Muhammed reprimanded the owner for the beating, or insisted on freeing the slave.

First, this is not a hadith. You are quoting a statement of Malik. Second, it again does not give permission to beat one's slave.
It is a statement of law, not hadith I agree. It makes an oath to beat a slave one that is enforceable. If a foolish young Muslim boy swears he will drink wine and eat pork, is he required to actually do so or make penance for it?

So a man beat his slave, and the Prophet said that God had more authority over the man, i.e. he should be mindful of God in his treatment of others and the man freed the slave. Where in this hadith is permisison given to beat one's slave?
It is not except there is an implicit recognition of what he is allowed to do. He is not told not to beat his slave, but, as is often the case with Muslims, to be aware of the limits and the need for moderation. At least I did not see a ban on striking the slave, or an insistence on freeing, just a reminder of the judgement to come.

First of all, if we have a clear Islamic law that prohibits beating of slaves and then you find a case of a some Muslims beating their slaves, then who does the blame go on? Definitely not Islam. Here we are discussing Islam's position and whether Islam was just in the laws it placed. To say that such and such a person in this country did this or so and so in that country did that, is irrelevant.
So we are only discussing the ideal situation not the actual reality? Interesting.

There is no indication of the former. Why don't we exmaine the historical evidence and find out what really happened with these prisoners?
May I ask, again, if you doubt the authenticity of the hadith? It seems to me that it says clearly what happened to the women. Is it wrong?

[quote] This occurred with the tribe of Al-Mustalaq and the situation is described as follows:
When the Muslims realized what the Prophet had done, they felt that they could no longer keep the people of al-Mustalaq as their slaves. The whole tribe were considered relatives of the Prophet now that he had married one of their women. This is in keeping with the tribal traditions of Arabia. So all the Muslims who had slaves from al-Mustalaq voluntarily set them free. The Muslims loved the Prophet more than they loved themselves, therefore it was natural that they did not like to have his relatives as their slaves.

May I just clarify your interpretation of this passage? Once the "servants" were distributed as booty, they did not belong to the Muslim state anymore but to the ordinary Muslims (who could buy and sell them) and so when it came time to free them, it was not the state that decided to do so, but the individual Muslims?

I cannot accept your evidence from Ibn Ishaq as it is not a hadith compilation and there is no verification of the reports therein. It contains many weak and fabricated narrations, compiled for those later on to evaluate, which they did. Also, the english translations were done by non-muslims and contain many mistranslations.
Surely all the accounts of what happened at Khaybar come down through Ibn Ishaq and no one else. Are there any hadith that deal with torture?

What are you referring to?
Your source, referring to torture, mentions the famous case after the fall of Khaybar where a Jew was suspected of hoarding gold illegally. The sources I have read say he was handed over to one of his enemies who "kindled a fire" on his chest to get him to talk. Your source said he was treated in a rough but "non-serious" manner - as torture is forbidden in Islam. So I am trying to clarify what you, or your source, means by "non-serious". Do you know if the said Jew died after this treatment?

When one feeds their slave with the same food they eat and clothes them with the same clothes they wear and stands by their side in prayer, there is no feeling of superiority.
In the Umayyad period, and perhaps even before, some scholars argued that marriages could be forbidden and annulled if the two parties were not "equals". They interpreted this, among other things, to mean that Arab women could not marry malwa. I am trying to find where Abu Hanifa says only the grandson of a malwa can marry an Arab woman. I do not think that in a society where descent is such a big issue, superiority is determined by food and clothes alone. But then we are discussing the ideal Islamic state so that is probably irrelevant.

This is the logical explanation concerning why the Islamic state dealt with prisoners of war in this manner. There was no other option.
But there is no source for it? Nothing in the Quran or aHadith?

So then you admit that this would just create more beggars for no reason since these people could be provided for as they already were.
Well no. It may have created more beggars, I do not know. But I pointed out that Islam is prepared for that and knows how to deal with it.

How would one know that these services would be needed by anyone other than his former master?
In some cases that may be the case, but if so that master would probably be prepared to pay a living wage for such services. Many slaves have been freed all over the world. Few have gone back and asked to be slaves again.

Where is the contradiction then, between what is mentioned in the verse and what the scholar mentioned before it?
It is not so much a contradiction as a partial account. The verse says the slave can buy himself. A flow of money from slave to owner. And the verse says that the owner ought to give him a gift (of unspecified value). So it is not an entirely fair or accurate interpretation to not mention the flow of money from slave to owner and just say "owners could free them and then gave the slaves some money". The power lies with the owner. So too is the money likely to move.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-09-2006, 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
May I ask if that was a female slave that gave birth to any child or only to those female slaves that gave birth to a child recognised by her owners as his?
If the female slave gave birth to her master's child.

But that does not really help me. If I might explain - I understand there is a difference in law between a city that surrenders and a city that is captured.
In this case it was both. The Makkans surrenderred in the face of Prophet Muhammad's army.

Just for my sake, Tabuk is in the far north-west of Saudi Arabia, just opposite Egypt, just a little to the south of the Jordanian border? In other words, inside Roman territory at the time? And Mu'ta was fought in Syria itself?
The Roman forces began to mobilize their army and marched to destroy the Muslim state. When the Muslims recieved news of this, they head north with their army and met their opponents at Tabuk.

All of them assume the existence of beating and none of them specifically forbid it.
No, only the first hadith could be taken to imply that beating happened. And even if that's the case we have the later hadith which explciitly prohibits beatings.

I think I found what I was looking for.
Thank you for bringing these up. All of them provide explicit proof that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh enforced the command that whoever beats their slave must free him as expiation.

Really? The hadith does seem to be about the giving away of food. I did not find anything in it to suggest Muhammed reprimanded the owner for the beating, or insisted on freeing the slave.
The Prophet Muhammad pbuh asked the man why he beat his slave. if it was acceptable, there would be no reason to ask. And all the other hadith clarify that when someone beats their slave they must free them.

It is a statement of law, not hadith I agree. It makes an oath to beat a slave one that is enforceable. If a foolish young Muslim boy swears he will drink wine and eat pork, is he required to actually do so or make penance for it?
If you make any such oath, expiation must be given and it is forbidden to fulfill the oath.

It is not except there is an implicit recognition of what he is allowed to do. He is not told not to beat his slave, but, as is often the case with Muslims, to be aware of the limits and the need for moderation. At least I did not see a ban on striking the slave, or an insistence on freeing, just a reminder of the judgement to come.
Yet the other hadith clarify the explicit prohibition of beating slaves.

So we are only discussing the ideal situation not the actual reality? Interesting.
We are speaking of the ACTUAL REALITY of what Islam teaches and whether it was just or not. One will always be able to find people who are not following Islamic teachings; the blame goes on them, not Islam. It seems many people have difficulty understanding this simple point especially with respect to problems in the Muslim world today. Why do you equate the wrong done by a particular Muslim with a flaw in Islam? There is no justification for such a conclusion.

May I ask, again, if you doubt the authenticity of the hadith? It seems to me that it says clearly what happened to the women. Is it wrong?
The hadith says what might have happened to the women had the Prophet Muhammad pbuh not taken the action he did which allowed them to be freed.

May I just clarify your interpretation of this passage? Once the "servants" were distributed as booty, they did not belong to the Muslim state anymore but to the ordinary Muslims (who could buy and sell them) and so when it came time to free them, it was not the state that decided to do so, but the individual Muslims?
In this case, they had to free them since the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had married Juwayriyah.

Surely all the accounts of what happened at Khaybar come down through Ibn Ishaq and no one else.
Not true. There are several hadith compilations, but of course that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.

Your source, referring to torture, mentions the famous case after the fall of Khaybar where a Jew was suspected of hoarding gold illegally. The sources I have read say he was handed over to one of his enemies who "kindled a fire" on his chest to get him to talk. Your source said he was treated in a rough but "non-serious" manner - as torture is forbidden in Islam. So I am trying to clarify what you, or your source, means by "non-serious". Do you know if the said Jew died after this treatment?
He was not killed; non-serious means that no torture or severe pain was inflicted upon him, nor any bodily harm.

In the Umayyad period, and perhaps even before, some scholars argued that marriages could be forbidden and annulled if the two parties were not "equals".
This has no basis as the Prophet Muhammad pbuh commanded such marriages in his life.

But there is no source for it? Nothing in the Quran or aHadith?
The proof is in the authentic hadith, which shows that whenever the Prophet Muhammad pbuh could, he simply detained captives as opposed to having them enslaved. In the story of the tribe of Adi ibn Haatim, his sister along with many of his other relatives were captured and detained by the Muslims. Eventually the Prophet Muhammad pbuh freed them, as a result of which Adi ibn Haatim came to him in Madinah and accepted Islam.

Well no. It may have created more beggars, I do not know. But I pointed out that Islam is prepared for that and knows how to deal with it.
Islam is designed to eradicate both poverty and slavery. Converting one into the other does not help. The Islamic system effectively placed steps to allow for rapid elimination of both.

It is not so much a contradiction as a partial account. The verse says the slave can buy himself.
The verse says that if a slave seeks a writing of emancipation, give it to him.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
02-09-2006, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
If the female slave gave birth to her master's child.
So slaves can be taken in war and distributed by the emir, and then bought and sold unless they have a recognised child by their Muslim master. I have no more to add to that.

The Roman forces began to mobilize their army and marched to destroy the Muslim state. When the Muslims recieved news of this, they head north with their army and met their opponents at Tabuk.
I found an Islamic site, http://--------------/restatement/34.htm, that discusses this battle - it mentions rumors of a Roman Army but,
After a laborious march the army arrived at the Syrian frontier, and halted at a hamlet called Tabuk but the Prophet could find no sign of the Roman army or of any other army or enemy. The frontier was peaceful and quiet. The reports he had heard in Medina about an imminent invasion by the Romans, were false.
So no mobilisation it seems.

Thank you for bringing these up. All of them provide explicit proof that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh enforced the command that whoever beats their slave must free him as expiation.
Although only one says so. The other place conditions - beating without a good reason for instance.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh asked the man why he beat his slave. if it was acceptable, there would be no reason to ask. And all the other hadith clarify that when someone beats their slave they must free them.
If it was banned he would not have to ask as it would not matter. If it was acceptable within limits he might well ask to see if those limits had been transgressed. You do not ask a man drinking wine what he is drinking, but you might ask a man who is drinking out of an anonymous container.

We are speaking of the ACTUAL REALITY of what Islam teaches and whether it was just or not. One will always be able to find people who are not following Islamic teachings; the blame goes on them, not Islam. It seems many people have difficulty understanding this simple point especially with respect to problems in the Muslim world today. Why do you equate the wrong done by a particular Muslim with a flaw in Islam? There is no justification for such a conclusion.
Well for me it was hard to tell if you were discussing the history of the early Islamic state or the theoretical nature of a theoretical Islamic state. I do not so equate the two - I think that they can be equated in some circumstances but that is not relevant here.

The hadith says what might have happened to the women had the Prophet Muhammad pbuh not taken the action he did which allowed them to be freed.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
I would have thought the implication of that was that they were already doing it and wanted to make sure it was acceptable. In any case, if they did not do it to these women, they were clearly given permission to do it to others.

In this case, they had to free them since the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had married Juwayriyah.
Except that they are not really prisoners of war that belong to the state, but the personal possessions of the fighters. It is a clarification of the position.

Not true. There are several hadith compilations, but of course that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.
Well I am interested if you do not mind referring me to some.

He was not killed; non-serious means that no torture or severe pain was inflicted upon him, nor any bodily harm.
What the other thread said was the treatment was "non-serious" but I notice the Jew talked and told them where the money was. I have checked the Sunan Abu Dawud and it says he was killed. No matter. I'll keep looking.

Islam is designed to eradicate both poverty and slavery. Converting one into the other does not help. The Islamic system effectively placed steps to allow for rapid elimination of both.
I'll accept that it placed steps to allow for it. But it did not happen. That has taken the West to do both.

The verse says that if a slave seeks a writing of emancipation, give it to him.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-09-2006, 09:49 PM
On the subject of the status of the slave, which you were asking me about, I'll provide you with some more quotations.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said:
Whoever frees a slave, Allah will free his body from the hellfire, just as he freed the body of the slave. (Bukhari)

Yield obedience to my succesors, even if he is a black ethiopian slave (Mishkat al-Masaabih, At-Tabreezee)

No one should say, "my slave" as all of you are slaves of Allah. (Bukhari, Muslim, An-Nasaa'ee and Ibn Hibban). If someone cannot even refer to their slave as 'slave' then how can they consider themselves superior?

Also, in response to one of your previous comments that Muslims were concerned about descent, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh compared the one who proudly asserts his lineage to the dung beetle and emphasized that all human beings are from Adam pbuh and Adam was created form dust. (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

Az-Zuhri, one of the famous Muslim scholars from the second generation after the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, related his discussion with Abdul-Maali in which he mentioned that Ataa ibn Abee Rabaah, Ta'oos Ibn Kaysaan, Yazeed Ibn Abee Habeeb, Makhoot Ad-Daimishqee, Maymoon Ibn Mahraam, Ad-Dakhaah Ibn Muzaahin, and Al-Hasan ibn Abi'l Hasan were the Muslim leaders in Makkah, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iraaq, Khurasaan, and Basrah yet all of them were freed slaves! In response to this, Abdul-Maalik said, "By Allah the freed slaves rule the Arabs to such an extent that they preach to them from the pulpits whilst the Arabs remain beneath them". (Hayat ul Hayawan vol. 2, part 1, pp. 224-225).

This quotation demonstrates that Islam elevated slaves to the lofty status of leaders within two generations.

What do non-Muslims say about Islam's stance on slavery?

Edward Blyden, on of the most important Pan-Africanist thinkers of the 19th century, points out that Islam is what saved much of Africa from slavery:
The introduction of Islam into Central and West Africa has been the most important, if not the sole, preservative against the desolations of the slave trade. Islam furnished a protection to the tribes who embraced it by effectively binding them together in one strong fraternity and enabling them by their united efforts to baffle the attempts of powerful pagan slave hunters. (Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, p. 215)
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.)
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))
Annemarie Schimmel writes:
"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). “ (Islam: An Introduction", p. 67)
All this evidence makes it very clear that it was Islam which paved the way to the abolition of slavery and it protected countless peoples from further enslavement. The global abandoning of slavery was only possible thanks to the steps taken by Islam.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
So slaves can be taken in war and distributed by the emir
The prisoners of war who were not ransomed or exchanged of freed in reward for teaching literacy to Muslims were entrusted to various familiar as servants, since the Islamic state did not possess the institutions or the resources to shelter such a vast number of captives. This is proven by the stories of other captives who were simply detained by the Muslims even though the custom was to enslave.

I found an Islamic site, http://--------------/restatement/34.htm, that discusses this battle - it mentions rumors of a Roman Army but,

So no mobilisation it seems.
The majority of the historians are agreed that the Romans mobilized their forces (see Al-W&#226;qid&#238;, Kit&#226;b Al-Magh&#226;z&#238;, vol 3, p. 990). Once the Muslims arrived there, the Romans had retreated so the Muslims returned after quelling the rebellion of local tribes.

But even this was not the first confrontation. The first open hostilities began before when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh sent a messenger, Al-Harith ibn Umayr, to the Ghassan tribe in Busra, a governate of the Byzantine empire. The chieftain of the tribe, Surahbil ibn 'Amr had the Prophet's messenger tied up and beheaded. In response to this open act of agression the Prophet Muhammad pbuh order a a force of 3 000 soldiers to meet the Ghassan tribe (Battle of Mut'ah). Shurahbil, however, mobilized 100 00 soldiers from local arab tribes and recieved an addition 100 000 soldiers from the Roman empire as reinforcements. The Muslims were quickly outnumbered and defeated by the Roman coalition.

Thus, the Romans initiated agression by beheading the Prophet's messenger, and the Persians initiated agression by sending soldiers to arrest and execute the Prophet.

If it was banned he would not have to ask as it would not matter.
Not necessarily. It is common for someone who did something wrong to be asked why they did such a thing. As I pointed out before the other hadith gives the clear prohibition anyway.

You do not ask a man drinking wine what he is drinking
if a Muslim drank wine, I would ask him why he drank it, knowing that it was forbidden.

I would have thought the implication of that was that they were already doing it and wanted to make sure it was acceptable. In any case, if they did not do it to these women, they were clearly given permission to do it to others.
Yes, relations with one's female slave were accepted. But notice how the Prophet always considered the treatment of the prisoners of war and whenever possible had them freed, as in this case.

Except that they are not really prisoners of war that belong to the state, but the personal possessions of the fighters.
The prisoners of war first go to the Islamic state.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade having relations with one's female servant until they had waited to ensure she was not already pregnant.

Well I am interested if you do not mind referring me to some.
Of course, but you will need to make a new thread.

Regards
Reply

kadafi
02-10-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I suspect I am fairly well acquainted with economic conditions back then. It is not necessarily true that economic opportunities for freed slaves were limited. It depends on the time and place. Some periods were periods of great economic expansion. Some were not. It does not follow that slaves did not have property or an education. Many slaves were educated - hence the rule that if they taught ten Muslims to read they should be freed. After all the bedouin were coming out of the desert and attacking older centers of civilisation and so you would expect educated slaves. And many had real property - Islamic law, and correct me if I am wrong, allows a slave to buy himself. This is not possible unless they had money to do so. Islamic law assumes that a freed slave would be dependent on his master. To some extent it enforces it because a master is responsible for the freedslave's diya and gets a part of his estate when he dies.
Greetings

I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Can you provide [any] evidence that freed slaves had personal, psychological or economic resources to secure themselves a dignified independence. I assume you are aware of the past consequence that was heaped on the freed slaves after the civil war.

Frederick Douglas said, regarding the ex-slaves after the civil war:
"free, without roofs to cover them, or bread to eat, or land to cultivate, and as a consequence died in such numbers as to awaken the hope of their enemies that they would soon disappear."
Islaam aimed at abolishing slavery gradually without introducing any negative consequences on the stability neither of the community nor in the economical status. This is because slaves represented a big economic power before the advent of Islaam. Another additional reason was that during that period, nations were lacking a solid system to exchange POWS. The only options that they enforced was either by putting the POWS to sword, keep them as captives, allow them to return to their people or distribute them as part of the spoils of war.

And the oft-used option was the last one. But Islaam replaced the cruel inhumane treatment that captives used to receive with compassion and justice.

Let me cite an example of a captive named Emmanuel d'Aranda, a student from Flanders who was caught at sea in 1640, and remained captive in the Regency of Algiers for two years (1640-2), narrated his experience. His first master was Cataborne Mostafa, who shared his meals with him, and his company. Then at some point his master, as a punishment following a quarrel with an army officer, was sent away for military duty for six months. Here is what d’Aranda has to say:
"I was sad about my master, who told me: `henceforth you will go and live at Mahomet Celibi Oiga; I hope with God’s help, before my return you will be free, and if I had money I will share it with you.’’ I answered: `Master, I know about your good will and your poverty; I kiss your hands, thanking you as much as I can for the good treatment I received in your house.’ He said "When you are back in Flanders, give my greetings to your parents."
Found in Emmanuel d’Aranda: Relation; op cit; In Denise Brahimi: Opinions et regards; op cit; pp. 45-6.
Labat (Priest) addresses the misconception that the slaves were treated inhumane by their Muslim captors. He wrote in his memoir:
"We imagine that the Christians who have the misfortune to be slaves in Barbary, are tortured in a very cruel manner and the most in-humane treatment inflicted on them. There are people who in order to stir the charity of the faithful pour with great assurance these lies: their intention, although good, is still always a lie. They forget that in this instance that it is not right to cause harm so as to derive good. I, too, have been in this situation like many others…. But what I saw in Tunis has convinced me these people are full of humanity, as I witnessed that our slaves on the boats waiting to sail were fed every day (fruit, meat, bread…)… and some of these slaves demanded that they stayed with their masters until the day they left for home; and I agreed. Their masters shared their meals with them, gave them tobacco, and looked after them as if they were their own children. They kissed them on the day of parting, and assured them, that if business or misfortune brought them back to the country, they could freely live with them, and they will be more than welcome."

But the bottom lines remains, why would someone keep a slave if they could hire a servant? The only reason is because it costs less to force someone to do a job badly, as opposed to hiring someone to do it well. Which means the price of labor for free men is pushed down as well. And it also means slaves are not treated well.
As I have mentioned above, these slaves were enemies who have been taken captive by the Muslims. The pre-Islamic practise was put them to sword, release them or distribute amongst Muslims as slaves. By releasing, it would set the Muslims to a huge disadvantage in the battle as the enemies still harbour animosity against them. By taking them as captives and dealing justly with them, these same captives would experience the humane treatment and realize the compassion and justice of their enemies which in turn leads them to drop their hatred for them.

Abu Dawood reports on the authority of Al-Ma'roor bin Suwaid that he said


"We entered Abu Thar's house at Al-Ribthah and found him dressed in a garment called 'burd', and found his slave dressed in an identical 'burd'. So we said : ' Why don't you, Abu Thar, wear that 'burd' of your slaves so that you may have a full suit, and give him instead a less sumptuous garment ?'

He replied : 'I heard the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say :


"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand.".
Abdul-Lah bin 'Umar freed a slave of his then picked a twig from the ground and said:
"I shall not receive for freeing him the worth of this in the Hereafter. I heard the Messenger of Allaah say : ' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave." (Muslim and Abu Dawood)
'Umar bin Al-Khattab (May Allaah be pleased with him) once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :
"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ?"
Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.

A man once entered the house of Salman (May Allaah be pleased with him) and saw him kneading his dough.


"What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work"
The above mentioned narrations dispel the myth that the captives (slaves) were not treated well. Islaam has forbidden enslaving a free person and has provided encouragement and countless reasons for manumission of slaves.

The humane treatment is a religious obligation and to a lesser extent a legal one, but it was in the West as well. Islamic slavery has been mixed. On the one hand Muslims invented the plantation system the Spanish took to the Americas -
I do not know your sources but the plantation system was developed in Virgina and Maryland (Americas). No reliable historian has ever stated that humane treatment found in the Islaamic Empire could be compared to the treatment that slaves received in the West. It was simply incomparable.

Unfortunately, the treatment of the slaves in the West was usually derived from Christianity.

Will Durant describes the position of the Church as follows:
"The Church did not condemn slavery. Orthodox and heretic, Roman and barbarian alike assumed the institution to he natural and in-destructible. Pagan laws condemned to slavery any free woman who married a slave; the laws of Constantine [a Christian emperor] ordered the woman to be executed, and the slave to be burned alive. The Emperor Gratian decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge"
The following quotation graphically shows the attitude of Islam and Christianity on the subject of slavery and race:
"Take away the black man! I can have no discussion with him," exclaimed the Christian Archbishop Cyrus when the Muslim conquerors had sent a deputation of their ablest men to discuss terms of surrender of the capital of Egypt, headed by Negro 'Ubaydah as the ablest of them all. To the sacred Archbishop's astonishment, he was told that this man was commissioned by General 'Amr; that the Muslims held Negroes and white men in equal respect judging a man by his character and not by his colour."
and the Black slaves in Iraq rose in revolt they were treated so badly. On the other the Mamluks ruled Egypt. In either case they are not servants. They cannot quit. They cannot demand more wages. They cannot change employers or go home. They can be beaten.
The black-slaves-revolting-in-Iraq tale is found in only one book by the biased historian Robert Payne. The man narrates any degrading inauthenthic tales about Muslims and alters the Qur'aanic passages in his book "The History of Islam" to suit his agenda. His factual errors and biased commentary would base the book in the category of fiction and should be disregarded by any student of history. Mamluks ruling Egypt is a clear example of the tolerance that the Islamic Empire preached, the same tolerance occured in India where Calips who were proud of being slaves ruled India. In fact, India was found by slaves.

Here are the names of those caliphs and of their slave mothers:-

1. Ma'mun al-Rashid: Murajil, a black slave-girl.
2. Mu'tasim Billah: a slave-girl from Kufah, named Maridah.
3. Wathiq Billah: a Roman named Qaratis.
4. Mutawakkil 'Allallah: son of Shuja.
5. Muntasir Billah: a Roman named Habashiyyah.
6. Musta'in Billah: Mukhariq.
7. Mu'tazz Billah: a Roman named Qabihah.
8. Muhtadi Billah: Wards, or Qurb.
9. Mu'tamid 'Alallah: a Roman named Fityan.
10. Mu'tazid Billah: Sawab (or Hirz or Dhirar).
11. Muktafi Billah: a Turkish slave-girl named Jijaq or Khudi.
12. Muqtadir Billah: a Roman or Turkish slave-girl called Gharib or Shaghab.
13. Qahir Billah: Fitnah.
14. Radhi Billah: a Roman, Zalum.
15. Muttaqi Lillah: Khalub or Zuhra.
16. Mustakfi Billah: Awjahun Naa or Ghusn.
17. Muti' Lillah: Mash'alah.
18. Atta'i Lillah: Hazar or Atab.
19. Qadir Billah: Dumanah or Tamanni.
20. Qa'im Billah: an Armenian called Badrudduja or Qatrunnada.
21. Muqtadi Bi Amrillah: Arjwan.
22. Mustazhir Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
23. Mustarshid Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
24. Rashid Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
25. Muqtafi Li Amrillah: an Ethiopian slave-girl.
26. Mustanjid Billah: a Karjiyya slave named Ta'us.
27. Mustadi' Bi Amrillah: an Armenian named Ghaddha.
28. Nasir Li Dinillah: a Turkish slave, Zamurrad.
29. Zahir Bi Amrillah~: Name not recorded.
30. Munstansir Billah: a Turkish slave (name not recorded).
31. Musta'sim Billah: Hajir

In the words of Will Durant,


"It is astonishing how many sons of slaves rose to high place in the intellectual and political world of Islam, how many, like Mahmud and the early Mameluks, became kings."
I do not deny the attempt at alleviation - but of course that can only go so far without suppressing the institution. By definition slavery involves treating humans like cattle, dragging them from their homes and families and forcing them to do work they would not otherwise do. But the progressive suppression? Where is the evidence for this?
Once again, that is the Western definition of slaves who were victims of cruel treatment. Definition varies from language to language and from nation to nation.

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."
P. L Riviere writes:
"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised 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"
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."
This, my friend, is progressive supression.

It is odd that you quote a non-Muslim, or at least a Westerner. Of course God knew it would be abolished. And if God wanted to tell Muslims to do so, He could have. The countries around the Muslims also worship idols. Yet that was abolished. They also ate haram foods. A lot of things were generally practiced. And yet many of them were abolished.
Not odd at all as some non-Muslims have some sort of in-denial for any quotations of Muslim historians. Apparently, the first excuse that they develop after seeing such quote is the word "biased". Hence why I occasionally resort to the statements of reliable orientalists.

Gradualism was applied for many requirements in the Shariah. For instance, alcohol, interest, etc.

A good explanation of applying gradualism in the Shariah is found at the following link:
Gradualism in Applying the Shari`ah



Which is true of Islam's enemies too. How would they have been at a great disadvantage?
Rhetorical question,,,

If the Muslims had released the captives straight upon caption, then wouldn't you agree that it would have caused a major disadvantage in battle between the two armies? Having POWS is a strategic tactic.

Actually I think that is unfair to the Romans. By the late Empire Roman laws on slavery look a lot like Islamic laws to me.
That is incorrect. I do concede that the Roman slavery improved after a few centuries but it never matched the laws that Islaam had imposed to eradicate slavery. For instance, slaves in late Roman Empire had very low-protected rights compared to the Early Roman Empire where they had none. This reform was abolished by the Christian emperor Constantine who added some really inhumane new laws. One of these stated that if an abandoned or wandering child were found, it person who found it could sell it into slavery.

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
02-10-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Can you provide [any] evidence that freed slaves had personal, psychological or economic resources to secure themselves a dignified independence.
What? Every single one? You ask the impossible.

I assume you are aware of the past consequence that was heaped on the freed slaves after the civil war.

Frederick Douglas said, regarding the ex-slaves after the civil war:
"free, without roofs to cover them, or bread to eat, or land to cultivate, and as a consequence died in such numbers as to awaken the hope of their enemies that they would soon disappear."
I notice you are quoting an opponent of slavery who would be fairly appalled to hear his words misused as a justification of the institution. And second, plantation slaves are a completely different matter to the urban workers of the Islamic world.

Islaam aimed at abolishing slavery gradually without introducing any negative consequences on the stability neither of the community nor in the economical status. This is because slaves represented a big economic power before the advent of Islaam.
I think I would object to both those claims. The claim that Islam intended the abolition of slavery is an inference. No one has produced a single piece of evidence to suggest that anyone ever foresaw the abolition of slavery. Not even a suggestion Muslims thought slavery was wrong, but useful. What has been produced is evidence of freeing individuals and lightening their burdens. That is a different claim to abolishing the institution. Indeed, you are defending it still. Second, the wars of Islam brought about large numbers of slaves. I know of no evidence that pre-Islamic Arab society had a fraction of that number of slaves. The Malwa are a major phenomena after Islam. But not before.

Another additional reason was that during that period, nations were lacking a solid system to exchange POWS. The only options that they enforced was either by putting the POWS to sword, keep them as captives, allow them to return to their people or distribute them as part of the spoils of war.
I am sure that is true. But then society also lacked many things Islam enforced. Islam still enforced those things. Even at some economic cost.

And the oft-used option was the last one. But Islaam replaced the cruel inhumane treatment that captives used to receive with compassion and justice.
Really? What is the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment before Islam in Arabia?

Let me cite an example of a captive named Emmanuel d'Aranda, a student from Flanders who was caught at sea in 1640, and remained captive in the Regency of Algiers for two years (1640-2), narrated his experience. His first master was Cataborne Mostafa, who shared his meals with him, and his company. Then at some point his master, as a punishment following a quarrel with an army officer, was sent away for military duty for six months. Here is what d’Aranda has to say:
[INDENT]"I was sad about my master, who told me: `henceforth you will go and live at Mahomet Celibi Oiga; I hope with God’s help, before my return you will be free, and if I had money I will share it with you.’’ I answered: `Master, I know about your good will and your poverty; I kiss your hands, thanking you as much as I can for the good treatment I received in your house.’ He said "When you are back in Flanders, give my greetings to your parents."
Found in Emmanuel d’Aranda: Relation; op cit; In Denise Brahimi: Opinions et regards; op cit; pp. 45-6.
I do not see a comment about slavery but about one slave owner. It is not fair to select out the few comments on the few good masters and argue this somehow means they all were when there is a vast Western literature on the bad treatment of slaves in North Africa.

As I have mentioned above, these slaves were enemies who have been taken captive by the Muslims. The pre-Islamic practise was put them to sword, release them or distribute amongst Muslims as slaves. By releasing, it would set the Muslims to a huge disadvantage in the battle as the enemies still harbour animosity against them. By taking them as captives and dealing justly with them, these same captives would experience the humane treatment and realize the compassion and justice of their enemies which in turn leads them to drop their hatred for them.
I am not even convinced they were the only options before Islam. After all tribal society is interested in raiding for camels, not killing people. Indeed the Bedouin usually still carefully avoid killing people. The wars of religion were much more harder fought and so many people were taken prisoner. I doubt that there was ever a war before Islam with huge numbers of prisoners. I notice, in passing, that there was another option which Muhammed used. He did not kill all the Jews of Medina. He exiled some after negotiating their surrender. The An-Nadir for instance. So there was a third option - to make them leave Arabia. What is the evidence that the enemies of the Muslims ever took prisoners in large numbers? It looks to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, they fought in the old limited way, without intending to take prisoners or kill many people. The Muslim fought a new style of war.


A man once entered the house of Salman (May Allaah be pleased with him) and saw him kneading his dough.

"What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work"
The above mentioned narrations dispel the myth that the captives (slaves) were not treated well. Islaam has forbidden enslaving a free person and has provided encouragement and countless reasons for manumission of slaves.
Except that refers to a servant. Not to a slave. It does not dispell the myth. Finding one good master is not proof of how most owners behaved. Talking about Islamic rules in the abstract does not mean they were obeyed or even enforced in real life. Which are you talking about? Islam does not forbid the enslavement of a free person. Haven't we covered this. It forbids the enslavement of a Free Muslim, and other people in times of peace. It allows the enslavement of people in times of war. It has provided reasons and encouragement for manumission - but that is not the same as ending the institution.

I do not know your sources but the plantation system was developed in Virgina and Maryland (Americas). No reliable historian has ever stated that humane treatment found in the Islaamic Empire could be compared to the treatment that slaves received in the West. It was simply incomparable.
Well no, the plantation system was brought to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese who learnt it from the Arabs. Most people are happy to say that Islamic slavery was very different from New World slavery. Which is what I said.

Unfortunately, the treatment of the slaves in the West was usually derived from Christianity.

Will Durant describes the position of the Church as follows:
"The Church did not condemn slavery. Orthodox and heretic, Roman and barbarian alike assumed the institution to he natural and in-destructible. Pagan laws condemned to slavery any free woman who married a slave; the laws of Constantine [a Christian emperor] ordered the woman to be executed, and the slave to be burned alive. The Emperor Gratian decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge"
Much the same could be said for Christianity as for Islam - neither condemned slavery. Both forbade the enslavement of their own fellow believers. Both were unhappy with sexual relations of various sorts.

The following quotation graphically shows the attitude of Islam and Christianity on the subject of slavery and race:
"Take away the black man! I can have no discussion with him," exclaimed the Christian Archbishop Cyrus when the Muslim conquerors had sent a deputation of their ablest men to discuss terms of surrender of the capital of Egypt, headed by Negro 'Ubaydah as the ablest of them all. To the sacred Archbishop's astonishment, he was told that this man was commissioned by General 'Amr; that the Muslims held Negroes and white men in equal respect judging a man by his character and not by his colour."
No, that shows the attitude of one man. It has nothing to do with the attitude of Egyptian Christians or even Byzantine Christians. After all Rome had been ruled by Africans, and even Arab, Emperors.

The black-slaves-revolting-in-Iraq tale is found in only one book by the biased historian Robert Payne. The man narrates any degrading inauthenthic tales about Muslims and alters the Qur'aanic passages in his book "The History of Islam" to suit his agenda. His factual errors and biased commentary would base the book in the category of fiction and should be disregarded by any student of history.
There is no credible history book that does not discuss the sort of the Black slaves in Iraq. It is a historical fact as certain as most facts can be. Look it up in Phillip Hitti's book, Albert Hourani's.

Mamluks ruling Egypt is a clear example of the tolerance that the Islamic Empire preached, the same tolerance occured in India where Calips who were proud of being slaves ruled India. In fact, India was found by slaves.
Tolerance? I notice that the Mamluks excluded African slaves in favour of Turkish ones even though both races there enrolled in the Army. It is a sign of the power of the slaves (and the oppression of Egyptians). No more.

In the words of Will Durant,

"It is astonishing how many sons of slaves rose to high place in the intellectual and political world of Islam, how many, like Mahmud and the early Mameluks, became kings."
It is astonishing. The West is used to freedom and so it is surprising to find the slaves of the powerful ruling over the mass of the population. That does not mean the slaves are treated well. Just that most people are treated worse than slaves.

Once again, that is the Western definition of slaves who were victims of cruel treatment. Definition varies from language to language and from nation to nation.

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."


That may be so but it is irrelevant. The slaves were treated badly.

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."
This, my friend, is progressive supression.
First of all, the master inherits the property of the freed slave. It is true that many Egyptians, like many Athenians, bought slaves and eventually made them their heirs and married them to their daughters. That says something about Egyptian men I think. But that does not mean that the system was not cruel. The slave is lowly in the West because free men are free and it is intolerable that citizens should be lower than a slave. They are not in the Middle East. The Islamic rules on freed slaves are very similar to those of the pagan Greek Middle East. A freed man in Islam is no more the equal in law of a free man than he was in Rome or Athens. He is a malwa.

And again there is no evidence here of gradual suppression - indeed the quote clearly shows that the Egyptians saw slavery as natural and inevitable so much so they assumed the French were slaves too. The idea that men could be citizens had not occurred to them.

Gradualism was applied for many requirements in the Shariah. For instance, alcohol, interest, etc.
Certainly. Just not to slavery.

Rhetorical question,,,

If the Muslims had released the captives straight upon caption, then wouldn't you agree that it would have caused a major disadvantage in battle between the two armies? Having POWS is a strategic tactic.
Not really. The pagan Arabs seemed to be fighting in the old camel raiding style to me and so did not take prisoners. They had nothing to do with them anyway. Nor did they kill that many people if they could avoid it. Muslim warfare was ambitious in a way that pagan warfare was not.

That is incorrect. I do concede that the Roman slavery improved after a few centuries but it never matched the laws that Islaam had imposed to eradicate slavery. For instance, slaves in late Roman Empire had very low-protected rights compared to the Early Roman Empire where they had none. This reform was abolished by the Christian emperor Constantine who added some really inhumane new laws. One of these stated that if an abandoned or wandering child were found, it person who found it could sell it into slavery.
That was always the case in pagan society. Foundlings were often raised as slaves.
Reply

HeiGou
02-10-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
If someone cannot even refer to their slave as 'slave' then how can they consider themselves superior?
By exercising power over them. You do not need a specific label to feel more powerful than the weak.

Also, in response to one of your previous comments that Muslims were concerned about descent, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh compared the one who proudly asserts his lineage to the dung beetle and emphasized that all human beings are from Adam pbuh and Adam was created form dust. (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)
Sure. Although Islam also introduced an element of ancestry in that the Quraysh became more important as did the descendents of Ali and Fatima.

This quotation demonstrates that Islam elevated slaves to the lofty status of leaders within two generations.
Sure. The Arabs were a tribal nation before Islam. They were under the Umayyads as well. The freed slaves were trusted servants of the King. The Roman Emperors also made their freedmen and even their slaves powerful ministers. It is a measure of how low everyone else was, not of how high the slaves were.

What do non-Muslims say about Islam's stancw on slavery?
As you and Kadafi seem to be reading the same website (as opposed to books) would you mind telling me which website you are cuting and pasting this from?

All this evidence makes it very clear that it was Islam which paved the way to the abolition of slavery and it protected countless peoples from further enslavement. The global abandoning of slavery was only possible thanks to the steps taken by Islam.
How is this evidence that Islam paved the way for the abolition of slavery? It looks like evidence for the widespread nature of slavery in Islamic society to me. What steps did Islam take that encouraged the British to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century? Why was it, do you think, that the last nations to abolish slavery were Muslim ones, that they usually did so only when the Europeans colonised them or otherwise made them, and many Muslims at the time defended slavery as Islamic?

The majority of the historians are agreed that the Romans mobilized their forces (see Al-Wâqidî, Kitâb Al-Maghâzî, vol 3, p. 990). Once the Muslims arrived there, the Romans had retreated so the Muslims returned after quelling the rebellion of local tribes.
Although that may well be a problem in itself. Do you know of any non-Muslim historian who thinks so?

But even this was not the first confrontation. The first open hostilities began before when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh sent a messenger, Al-Harith ibn Umayr, to the Ghassan tribe in Busra, a governate of the Byzantine empire. The chieftain of the tribe, Surahbil ibn 'Amr had the Prophet's messenger tied up and beheaded. In response to this open act of agression the Prophet Muhammad pbuh order a a force of 3 000 soldiers to meet the Ghassan tribe (Battle of Mut'ah). Shurahbil, however, mobilized 100 00 soldiers from local arab tribes and recieved an addition 100 000 soldiers from the Roman empire as reinforcements. The Muslims were quickly outnumbered and defeated by the Roman coalition.
This is clearly non-historic. The Ghassan tribe were allies, not a governate. And the entire Roman Empire only had about 150,000 soldiers and we know where they were stationed in the Seventh century.

Yes, relations with one's female slave were accepted. But notice how the Prophet always considered the treatment of the prisoners of war and whenever possible had them freed, as in this case.
So "good treatment" in this case includes having sexual relations with your female captives if you so wish? As well as buying and selling if you want. This is not quite the way most people treat servants.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade having relations with one's female servant until they had waited to ensure she was not already pregnant.
Yes. Although it occasionally occurs to me that I don't think he followed that himself in every case. There must be a reason for it, or I must be wrong. But as that is unlikely to be a subject of polite conversation I will not discuss it.

Of course, but you will need to make a new thread.
That, alas, would be beyond my technical competence.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-10-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
By exercising power over them. You do not need a specific label to feel more powerful than the weak.
If someone is forbidden to even refer to them as "my slave" it completely demolishes any idea of superiority.
Sure. Although Islam also introduced an element of ancestry in that the Quraysh became more important as did the descendents of Ali and Fatima.
False. All human beings are equally important, and only piety distinguishes them in the eyes of God.
Sure. The Arabs were a tribal nation before Islam. They were under the Umayyads as well. The freed slaves were trusted servants of the King. The Roman Emperors also made their freedmen and even their slaves powerful ministers. It is a measure of how low everyone else was, not of how high the slaves were.
If Islam elevated the freed slaves to the levels of scholars, governors and leaders, I feel that pretty much quashes any idea of inferiority.

As you and Kadafi seem to be reading the same website (as opposed to books) would you mind telling me which website you are cuting and pasting this from?
I take from a number of sites and books. The only quotations we both shared were Napolean's and Mouradgea's, both found on multiple sites.

How is this evidence that Islam paved the way for the abolition of slavery?
The freeing of slaves, elevation of their status, restricting sources, mandating good treatment - all of this unrooted slavery and paved the way to its abolition.
What steps did Islam take that encouraged the British to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century?
As mentioned in the quotes from historians, Islam preserved much of Africa from slave traders allowing the institution to become gradually weak enough for the world to abolish..

Although that may well be a problem in itself. Do you know of any non-Muslim historian who thinks so?
non-muslim historians have only Muslim authorities to rely on in this respect.

This is clearly non-historic. The Ghassan tribe were allies, not a governate. And the entire Roman Empire only had about 150,000 soldiers and we know where they were stationed in the Seventh century.
Feel free to bring historical evidence to disprove my claims that the Ghassan tribe as a governate and the number of Roman soldiers. Even if we accept what you say, for the sake of argument, the fact still remains that the Romans initiated agressions against the Muslims.

So "good treatment" in this case includes having sexual relations with your female captives if you so wish?
"good treatment" with one's wife includes having relations if you so wish?

Yes. Although it occasionally occurs to me that I don't think he followed that himself in every case. There must be a reason for it, or I must be wrong. But as that is unlikely to be a subject of polite conversation I will not discuss it.
Feel free to bring historical evidence; I welcome debate that is done in a respectful manner.

Regards
Reply

kadafi
02-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
What? Every single one? You ask the impossible.
Clearly when I am asking for such evidence, I automatically imply observations from historians, or any historical reference that is pertained to the matter.

I notice you are quoting an opponent of slavery who would be fairly appalled to hear his words misused as a justification of the institution. And second, plantation slaves are a completely different matter to the urban workers of the Islamic world.
I did not quote the abolitionist’s view to vindicate the slavery institution, but rather as an evidence that a whole-scale abolishment would result in disastrous consequences as evident in the words of Frederick Douglas. The slaves, whether they're urban slaves or plantation slaves do not matter as in the end, one has to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves who were dependent on various families. Considering that a large number of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.

I think I would object to both those claims. The claim that Islam intended the abolition of slavery is an inference. No one has produced a single piece of evidence to suggest that anyone ever foresaw the abolition of slavery. Not even a suggestion Muslims thought slavery was wrong, but useful. What has been produced is evidence of freeing individuals and lightening their burdens. That is a different claim to abolishing the institution. Indeed, you are defending it still. Second, the wars of Islam brought about large numbers of slaves. I know of no evidence that pre-Islamic Arab society had a fraction of that number of slaves. The Malwa are a major phenomena after Islam. But not before.
Your objection is nothing more than a stubborn one. After presenting the Islaamic evidence on the gradual abolishment of slavery, you still object and claim that Islaam encourages slavery. Let me outline the rules laid out for the abolishment of the instituation.

- It placed restrictions on acquistition of slaves (no free man can be enslaved)
- It commenced an active compaign to emancipate slaves
- Treat them with kindness, enclothe them from your own clothes, and feed them from your own food
- Marry them


This gradual approach would have eradicated slavery. Aisha (May Allaah be pleased with her) said:


"If the Glorious Qur'aan first told the Muslims not to drink, gamble, perform fornication, or adultery they would have said: "No, we cannot". The Glorious Qur'aan kept putting in their hearts the fear and love for Allaah. The description of the life hereafter with its Paradise and Gardens of Eden for those obey and Hell and its fire for those who rebel, until their hearts softened. Then they were commanded to stop alcohol, adultery and gambling, and they complied" (Bukharee)
In the pre-Islaamic days, slaves were a commercial commodity and it was an established institution. Every household had a slave and free men were sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For those with high ranks, the number of slaves in the house was was a symbol of status. Arabs used to wage many tribal wars which increased the number of slaves and made it deep-rooted in the society. It had its roots in commerce, in social structure and in agriculture undertakings then how can one eradicate this problem except apply the law of gradualism. Additionally, a chief/ruler could enslave, depending on his whim, anyone residing under his domain, a father or grandfather had absolute authority over his offspring which could mean that he could sell or gift him or exchange him with another's son or daughter. These were the practises of the Pre-Islaamic society.

Let's compare gradualism with whole-scale abolition. The US has used whole-scale abolition which in turn leads to more hostility and hatred against the Black community. They were discriminated, denied jobs, denied mental healthcare, etc. What Islaam offered is gradualism, and that is by changing the attitude and mentality of the whole society, so that after emancipation, slaves would become its full-fledged members, without any need of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and racial riots.

I am sure that is true. But then society also lacked many things Islam enforced. Islam still enforced those things. Even at some economic cost.
"Many things" is not a satisfactory answer. Elaborate in order for me to reply adequately.

Really? What is the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment before Islam in Arabia
Previously, it was the custom to deprive them from food and water. Sometimes they had to work for it or get through private means. Islaam abolished that and laid rules that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injure.

Allaah (Exalted is He) said:
"Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allaah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allaah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you."
Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:
"Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)"
This is why many of the captives were amazed at the compassion and just treatment that they had received from their Muslim captors. Similar to the Christian captives who attested that they had received nothing but good from their Muslim captors.

I do not see a comment about slavery but about one slave owner. It is not fair to select out the few comments on the few good masters and argue this somehow means they all were when there is a vast Western literature on the bad treatment of slaves in North Africa.
These are examples. Surely you do not want me to list every account of captives. I will only list examples that followed the Islaamic teachings. Sure, there were some bad treatments but these people have strayed from the correct understandings of Islaam. I do not wish to argue for their actions; rather I only wish to highlight what Islaam says about the issue. I am not responsible for the actions of others nor do I wish to defend it.

I am not even convinced they were the only options before Islam. After all tribal society is interested in raiding for camels, not killing people. Indeed the Bedouin usually still carefully avoid killing people. The wars of religion were much more harder fought and so many people were taken prisoner. I doubt that there was ever a war before Islam with huge numbers of prisoners. I notice, in passing, that there was another option which Muhammed used. He did not kill all the Jews of Medina. He exiled some after negotiating their surrender. The An-Nadir for instance. So there was a third option - to make them leave Arabia. What is the evidence that the enemies of the Muslims ever took prisoners in large numbers? It looks to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, they fought in the old limited way, without intending to take prisoners or kill many people. The Muslim fought a new style of war.
These were the only options in the Pre-Islaamic period. This is why Allaah (Exalted is He) forbade the killing of the captives. Inter-tribal raids were conducted to inflict injury on the other tribe. They kidnapped, killed other tribes and shared their stock (livelihood). For example, Zaid bin Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with him) was one of those who was kidnapped in tribal raids.

Banu an-Nadir were banished from the city, not Arabia. The reason for their banishment is that one cannot captivate the whole tribe since it doesn't bring any benefit to the Muslims. This option was not present in the pre-Islaamic period. The tribes that conquered other tribes wouldn't be satisfied with merely letting them go but either enslaved them or put them to sword. Even though Banu an-Nadir plotted to kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he still released them.

As for your question, whether they are any evidence of the Muslim enemies taking large POWs, then there is one. For example, Richard imprisoned the Muslim soldiers alongside with their wives and children and announced a prisoner exchange. A failure of communications in the negotiations resulted in Richard ordering the executions of 3000 Muslim soldiers and their wives and children in front of Salahuddin Ayyubi and his army. Another reason why you won't find many Muslim captives is that most early wars were won by the Muslim armies. It also enhanced the fact that the enemies of Islaam usually killed their captives straightaway instead of ransoming them.


Except that refers to a servant. Not to a slave.
Why do you think he didn't call him 'my slave'. In Islaam, it is forbidden to call a slave, "my slave". Abu Huraira reported that Allaah's Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as saying:


None of you should say: My slave and my slave-girl, for all of you are the slaves of Allaah, and all your women are the slave-girls of Allaah; but say: My servant, my girl, and my young man and my young girl. (Saheeh Muslim)
Islam does not forbid the enslavement of a free person. Haven't we covered this. It forbids the enslavement of a Free Muslim, and other people in times of peace. It allows the enslavement of people in times of war. It has provided reasons and encouragement for manumission - but that is not the same as ending the institution.
Islaam does forbid the enslavement of a free person except on the condition that he does not wage war against Islaam.

The Lajna ad-Daa’imah (Permanent Committee for Islamic Research issued a Fatwaa wherein they were asked about the issue of slavery and why does not Islaam outlaw slavery, from their reply:
"By this it is known that the basis of slavery is only through prisoners-of-war or captives obtained when fighting Jihad against the disbelievers. Its purpose is to reform those enslaved by removing them from an evil environment and allowing them to live in a Muslim society, who will guide them to the path of goodness, save them from the clutches of evil, purify them from the filth of disbelief and misguidance, and
make them deserving of a life of freedom in which they enjoy security and peace."
They furthered stated:


"And if there are no lawful Islamic wars, then it is not permissible to establish or institute slavery."
Well no, the plantation system was brought to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese who learnt it from the Arabs. Most people are happy to say that Islamic slavery was very different from New World slavery. Which is what I said.
The plantation system was developed in the Americas in Virgina and to a lesser extent Maryland.

Much the same could be said for Christianity as for Islam - neither condemned slavery. Both forbade the enslavement of their own fellow believers. Both were unhappy with sexual relations of various sorts.
Islaam forbade the enslavement of any free person except the ones who wage war against Islaam. Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib. It's also silly to compare Islaam with Christianity in terms of slavery as both view the subject in different matter.

No, that shows the attitude of one man. It has nothing to do with the attitude of Egyptian Christians or even Byzantine Christians. After all Rome had been ruled by Africans, and even Arab, Emperors.
We are talking about Archbishop here and not a single ordinary Christian. Why would he be surprised that Islaam held the black and white men in equal respect. This means that the attitude that black men are inferior to the white men was prevalent in that period.

Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs after they invaded the city. That is completely extraneous to what's being discussed. That's like saying that the Nubians once ruled Egypt but what does that reveal in relation what I have quoted?

There is no credible history book that does not discuss the sort of the Black slaves in Iraq. It is a historical fact as certain as most facts can be. Look it up in Phillip Hitti's book, Albert Hourani's.
I would have appreciated if you had used the correct names for such revolts. What you're referring to is the Zanj revolt and I do not know why you referred me to Hitti's and Hourani's books while the Zanj revolt has only one primary source and that it's in the tareekh of Tabari.

Firstly, what happened during the Zanj Revolt has nothing to do with Islaam. It seems that you have slowly strayed from discussing the Islaamic teachings to discussing the actions of some Muslims. The zanj suffered terrible conditions and treatments and they shouldn't have been enslaved except if they waged war against Islaam. However, they were manipulated by the apostate Ali Muhammad who stirred them up for his own political agenda against the Abbasid empire. What happened during the revolt should never happen again. The Zanj were manipulated and committed savaged actions when they repelled. They viciously murdered any child, woman or man. The source of the conflict was many and I suggest you read the tareekh of Tabari who discusses this revolt in great detail.


Tolerance? I notice that the Mamluks excluded African slaves in favour of Turkish ones even though both races there enrolled in the Army. It is a sign of the power of the slaves (and the oppression of Egyptians). No more.
You misunderstood what I had stated. The tolerance that I was referring to was that even a slave could reach a high rank. I would like to re-iterate that I do not wish to defend the actions of men, just as a Christian does not want to defend the immoral actions of the Crusaders.

First of all, the master inherits the property of the freed slave. It is true that many Egyptians, like many Athenians, bought slaves and eventually made them their heirs and married them to their daughters. That says something about Egyptian men I think. But that does not mean that the system was not cruel. The slave is lowly in the West because free men are free and it is intolerable that citizens should be lower than a slave. They are not in the Middle East. The Islamic rules on freed slaves are very similar to those of the pagan Greek Middle East. A freed man in Islam is no more the equal in law of a free man than he was in Rome or Athens. He is a malwa.
How is a freed Muslim man not equal to a free Muslim man? Such statements in the light of the Islaamic teachings reveal nothing but sheer ignorance as has been discussed in the last few pages. How can one after providing the Islaamic rulings on freed slaves still hold the same opinion that they're not equal in law? This would mean that Bilaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who was once a freed-slave was not equal to a free Muslim. What about Salman, or Zayd bin Haritha. Not to mention, Ammar bin Yasir. Some companions who were once freed slaves were also the foremost of the sahabas. I have noticed that you have neither provided Islaamic proof for your assertions but simply relied on the few social evils in slavery that was practiced throughout the Islaamic world.

Certainly. Just not to slavery.
It was applied for slavery.

That was always the case in pagan society. Foundlings were often raised as slaves.
It was re-endorsed by Constantine, the Christian emperor who was not a pagan. But your claim was that the slavery laws in late Roman Empire was similar to the Islaamic laws, which I proved, was an incorrect assertion.

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
02-12-2006, 10:05 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I did not quote the abolitionist’s view to vindicate the slavery institution, but rather as an evidence that a whole-scale abolishment would result in disastrous consequences as evident in the words of Frederick Douglas. The slaves, whether they're urban slaves or plantation slaves do not matter as in the end, one has to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves who were dependent on various families. Considering that a large number of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.
Which is, in effect, to vindicate the institution. It does matter. Plantation workers were often illiterate and had no skills. That is very different from the Urban educated workers of the Islamic world.

Your objection is nothing more than a stubborn one. After presenting the Islaamic evidence on the gradual abolishment of slavery, you still object and claim that Islaam encourages slavery.
I am unaware that I said Islam encourages slavery. And I not being stubborn. You just have not produce any evidence.

Let me outline the rules laid out for the abolishment of the instituation.

- It placed restrictions on acquistition of slaves (no free man can be enslaved)
Which is not true - no free Muslim may be enslaved, but free kaffirs were - and has nothing to do with the abolition of the institution. America did not allow the enslavement of Americans. Just Africans.

- It commenced an active compaign to emancipate slaves
On a case by case basis. Not as an institution. Can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it?

- Treat them with kindness, enclothe them from your own clothes, and feed them from your own food
Which is useful for the slaves, if it was ever observed, but of course has nothing to do with abolishing the institution.

- Marry them
See above. Reform is not revolution. Amelioration is not abolition.

This gradual approach would have eradicated slavery.
I would ask how but I suspect I would not get a useful answer. May I ask if we both agree that there was no sign of slavery disappearing in the Islamic world before, oh, 1800?

In the pre-Islaamic days, slaves were a commercial commodity and it was an established institution. Every household had a slave and free men were sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For those with high ranks, the number of slaves in the house was was a symbol of status.
As they were in post-Islamic days as well.

Arabs used to wage many tribal wars which increased the number of slaves and made it deep-rooted in the society. It had its roots in commerce, in social structure and in agriculture undertakings then how can one eradicate this problem except apply the law of gradualism.
Which is nothing compared to the deep-roots of paganism which was abolished over night. Even alcohol was abolished in a few years. Islam did not abolish slavery over several centuries. How gradual do you want? It is likely that Islam still has not abolished slavery in all of Africa.

Let's compare gradualism with whole-scale abolition. The US has used whole-scale abolition which in turn leads to more hostility and hatred against the Black community. They were discriminated, denied jobs, denied mental healthcare, etc. What Islaam offered is gradualism, and that is by changing the attitude and mentality of the whole society, so that after emancipation, slaves would become its full-fledged members, without any need of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and racial riots.
You are making a huge assumption there that it was the speed of the end of slavery that caused the hatred. This is a-historic I think. Where is the evidence that Islamic society changed its attitudes before the British (or whoever) arrived and made them?

These are examples. Surely you do not want me to list every account of captives. I will only list examples that followed the Islaamic teachings. Sure, there were some bad treatments but these people have strayed from the correct understandings of Islaam. I do not wish to argue for their actions; rather I only wish to highlight what Islaam says about the issue. I am not responsible for the actions of others nor do I wish to defend it.
Then would it be fair to compare what Christianity teaches with what Islam teaches, not what Islam teaches with what Christians do?

These were the only options in the Pre-Islaamic period. This is why Allaah (Exalted is He) forbade the killing of the captives. Inter-tribal raids were conducted to inflict injury on the other tribe. They kidnapped, killed other tribes and shared their stock (livelihood). For example, Zaid bin Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with him) was one of those who was kidnapped in tribal raids.
There was another option - not fight at all. Pre-Islamic warfare was just raiding and even that did not aim at taking prisoners or killing people. They stole camels, but the aim was to avoid feuds by not killing people.

Banu an-Nadir were banished from the city, not Arabia.
Gradualism remember - first from Medina (to Khaybar) and then from all of Arabia.

The reason for their banishment is that one cannot captivate the whole tribe since it doesn't bring any benefit to the Muslims. This option was not present in the pre-Islaamic period. The tribes that conquered other tribes wouldn't be satisfied with merely letting them go but either enslaved them or put them to sword. Even though Banu an-Nadir plotted to kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he still released them.
And yet some of the other Jews of Medina were turned into slaves. Well the women and children were. They were either enslaved or put to the sword. So the option was there - the Banu an-Nadir had friends in the Medinese community though.

Islaam does forbid the enslavement of a free person except on the condition that he does not wage war against Islaam.
Sure. It permits the enslavement of free men. And of course it also allows the enslavement of children born to slaves - they are born free but are then turned into slaves at birth.

The plantation system was developed in the Americas in Virgina and to a lesser extent Maryland.
I have no problem with "developed" but it was adopted from the Spanish who took it from the Muslims. Sugar cane too.

Islaam forbade the enslavement of any free person except the ones who wage war against Islaam. Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib. It's also silly to compare Islaam with Christianity in terms of slavery as both view the subject in different matter.
You are comparing Christian behaviour with Islamic theory again. Of course Islam allowed the enslavement of anyone who was not a Muslim or a Dhimmi in times of war - they did not have to be waging war against Islam. They could be just minding their own business.

We are talking about Archbishop here and not a single ordinary Christian. Why would he be surprised that Islaam held the black and white men in equal respect. This means that the attitude that black men are inferior to the white men was prevalent in that period.
That is not what he is expressing surprise at. It is a Muslim story as well and so can hardly be taken seriously as history given how late it is. It means very little really. It may mean he thought the Arabs were racists.

Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs after they invaded the city. That is completely extraneous to what's being discussed. That's like saying that the Nubians once ruled Egypt but what does that reveal in relation what I have quoted?
Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs before Islam. Well before Islam. So it is obviously not surprising for the Bishop given he was used to Arabs ruling Rome. The Romans were many things but not racists. It reveals a lot about what was acceptable to the Egyptians.

I would have appreciated if you had used the correct names for such revolts. What you're referring to is the Zanj revolt and I do not know why you referred me to Hitti's and Hourani's books while the Zanj revolt has only one primary source and that it's in the tareekh of Tabari.
Tabari is not a primary source. I do not see the difference, "Zanj" means what exactly? but I am happy to oblige.

Firstly, what happened during the Zanj Revolt has nothing to do with Islaam. It seems that you have slowly strayed from discussing the Islaamic teachings to discussing the actions of some Muslims. The zanj suffered terrible conditions and treatments and they shouldn't have been enslaved except if they waged war against Islaam. However, they were manipulated by the apostate Ali Muhammad who stirred them up for his own political agenda against the Abbasid empire. What happened during the revolt should never happen again. The Zanj were manipulated and committed savaged actions when they repelled. They viciously murdered any child, woman or man. The source of the conflict was many and I suggest you read the tareekh of Tabari who discusses this revolt in great detail.
I agree it has not been clear whether we are discussing Islam in theory or in practice, but as you like to talk about Christianity is practice, it is not all that unreasonable to talk about the implications of Islamic law. It has a lot to do with Islam. Islam allowed people to produce interpretations of the law that allowed them to do this to these African slaves. They became Muslims even if they became Kharijis. They did commit savage actions like many Kharijis who adopted an extreme form of Islam that made them view all sinners (ie their opponents) as kaffirs. This is not entirely unrelated to Islam although obviously it is not Islam as most people understand it.

How is a freed Muslim man not equal to a free Muslim man? Such statements in the light of the Islaamic teachings reveal nothing but sheer ignorance as has been discussed in the last few pages. How can one after providing the Islaamic rulings on freed slaves still hold the same opinion that they're not equal in law? This would mean that Bilaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who was once a freed-slave was not equal to a free Muslim. What about Salman, or Zayd bin Haritha. Not to mention, Ammar bin Yasir. Some companions who were once freed slaves were also the foremost of the sahabas. I have noticed that you have neither provided Islaamic proof for your assertions but simply relied on the few social evils in slavery that was practiced throughout the Islaamic world.
Well correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave did not have the same social rights in early Islam - no doubt you would dispute that and I would get banned so I will stick to the lesser argument and point out that a freed slave was not a free man but a freedman, a malwa. This imposed legal obligations and restrictions. In theory the moral value of a slave's soul might equal that of a free man's, but in the real world, a freed slave was not the same. There are any number of examples. Let me take the most obvious - a freed slave was not free to dispose of his property exactly how he would like. His former owner would inherit part of his estate and this, the wala was heritable. For example,

Malik's Muwatta, Section: Inheritance of Children of Women against whom Lian has been Pronounced, Book 29, Number 29.13.36:

Yaha related to me from Malik that he had heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr said that if the child of the woman against whom lian had been pronounced or the child of fornication, died, his mother inherited from him her right in the Book of Allah the Exalted, and his maternal half-brothers had their rights. The rest was inherited by the owners of his mother's wala' if she was a freed slave. If she was an ordinary free woman, she inherited her right, his maternal brothers inherited their rights, and the rest went to the muslims.

Malik said,"I heard the same as that from Sulayman ibn Yasar, and it is what I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 341:

Narrated Qasim bin Muhammad:

Three traditions have been established because of Barira: 'Aisha intended to buy her and set her free, but Barira's masters said, "Her wala' will be for us." 'Aisha mentioned that to Allah's Apostle who said, "You could accept their condition if you wished, for the wala is for the one who manumits the slave." Barira was manumitted, then she was given the choice either to stay with her husband or leave him; One day Allah's Apostle entered 'Aisha's house while there was a cooking pot of food boiling on the fire. The Prophet asked for lunch, and he was presented with bread and some extra food from the home-made Udm (e.g. soup). He asked, "Don't I see meat (being cooked)?" They said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle! But it is the meat that has been given to Barira in charity and she has given it to us as a present." He said, "For Barira it is alms, but for us it is a present."

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 739:

Narrated 'Abdul Wahid bin Aiman:

I went to 'Aisha and said, "I was the slave of Utba bin Abu Lahab. "Utba died and his sons became my masters who sold me to Ibn Abu Amr who manumitted me. The sons of 'Utba stipulated that my Wala' should be for them." 'Aisha said, "Buraira came to me and she was given the writing of emancipation by her masters and she asked me to buy and manumit her. I agreed to it, but Buraira told me that her masters would not sell her unless her Wala' was for them." 'Aisha said, "I am not in need of that." When the Prophet heard that, or he was told about it, he asked 'Aisha about it. 'Aisha mentioned what Buraira had told her. The Prophet said, "Buy and manumit her and let them stipulate whatever they like." So, 'Aisha bought and manumitted her and her masters stipulated that her Wala' should be for them." The Prophet;, said, "The Wala' will be for the liberator even if they stipulated a hundred conditions."

[quote]It was re-endorsed by Constantine, the Christian emperor who was not a pagan. But your claim was that the slavery laws in late Roman Empire was similar to the Islaamic laws, which I proved, was an incorrect assertion. [QUOTE]

Similar is not the same as equal to. Nor is Constantine all that late.

Come to that, it is not as if Islamic law is fundamentally different. They simply made the foundling a freed slave - which probably meant a lot more of them died in infancy.

Section: Judgement on the Abandoned Child
Book 36, Number 36.20.19:

Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab that Sunayn Abi Jamila, a man from the Banu Sulaym, found an abandoned child in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Sunayn took him to Umar ibn al-Khattab. He asked, "What has induced you to take this person?" He answered, "I found him lost, so I took him.'' Umar's advisor said to him,' 'Amir al-Muminin! He is a man who does good." Umar inquired of him, "Is it so?" He replied, "Yes." Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Go, he is free, and you have his wala' inheritance, and we will provide for him."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about an abandoned child is that he is free, and his wala' inheritance belongs to the muslims, and they inherit from him and pay his blood money."
Reply

kadafi
02-13-2006, 05:23 PM
A quick note to say that I have merged some of your one line replies. This is for the sake of organizing the responses.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
Which is, in effect, to vindicate the institution. It does matter. Plantation workers were often illiterate and had no skills. That is very different from the Urban educated workers of the Islamic world.
You did not answer the question. How would one cater for the needs of a large army of freed slaves who were dependent on various families bearing in mind that most of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.
How could one abolish an international custom without introducing disastrous consequences?

Which is not true - no free Muslim may be enslaved, but free kaffirs were - and has nothing to do with the abolition of the institution. America did not allow the enslavement of Americans. Just Africans.
Does Islaam allow enslavement of any free man who has not waged war against Islaam? If that was the case, they would have enslaved all the non-Muslims who were living under the Islaamic rule. Moreover, the enslavement of the captives is usually carried out as the last resort. They first serve as an exchange for captured Muslim prisoners. If not, then they are ransomed or freed depending on the situation. As a last resort, they are enslaved and distributed amongst Muslims who take care of them, educate them, etc.

The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
Three types of people will not have rewards for their prayer : a man who forces himself as an imam, a man who postpones prayer until its time is out and a man who enslaves a free person. (Abu Dawood & Ibn Majah)
Ibn al-Jauzi (May Allaah have mercy on him) said:
'The free person is the slave of Allaah. So, anybody who enslaves him, Allaah as his Master, will defend and support this free person'.
On a case by case basis. Not as an institution. Can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it?
Why would one want statements from Muslim scholars for something that has been unequivocally recognized in the teachings of Islaam. That’s like asking for statements from Muslim scholars to strengthen the fact that Muslims have monotheistic belief. Why would one ask for more evidence and disregard the previous cited statements and narrations. It's even attested by non-Muslim orientalists that the Islamic system to eradicate slavery would have worked if it was practised throughout the Muslim world.

Annemarie Schimmel:
...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.
I would ask how but I suspect I would not get a useful answer. May I ask if we both agree that there was no sign of slavery disappearing in the Islamic world before, oh, 1800?
That's because you're concentrating on the abandonment of the Islaamic teachings. If the Muslim world had practiced the Islaamic teachings throughout the Muslim history, slavery would have disappeared gradually.

As they were in post-Islamic days as well.
This is incorrect. Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity. Free men were not sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For that I require evidence and in the future insha'Allaah, I will require evidence for every claim that you assert. Single lines wouldn't do.

Which is nothing compared to the deep-roots of paganism which was abolished over night. Even alcohol was abolished in a few years. Islam did not abolish slavery over several centuries. How gradual do you want? It is likely that Islam still has not abolished slavery in all of Africa.
How could one equate alcohol to a worldwide institution? Gradualism is the keyword. Islaam would have abolished slavery in centuries if practised right.

You are making a huge assumption there that it was the speed of the end of slavery that caused the hatred. This is a-historic I think. Where is the evidence that Islamic society changed its attitudes before the British (or whoever) arrived and made them?
See above.

There was another option - not fight at all. Pre-Islamic warfare was just raiding and even that did not aim at taking prisoners or killing people. They stole camels, but the aim was to avoid feuds by not killing people.
There is not a single shred of evidence to support your assertion. Patricia Crone said in The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World regarding the Pre-Islamic raids:
Tribesmen took immense pride in their ability to defend themselves and their dependants, and they regularly boasted of their strength in poetry, giving pleasure to themselves and warning potential predators at the same time. The ability to get the better of others (not of one's own tribe) by taking their camels, abducting their women, killing their men, or slitting the noses of their defenceless slaves was also highly prized.
Here, she lists the options that I have mentioned before and at the same confutes your claim that they did not kill other tribes.

And yet some of the other Jews of Medina were turned into slaves. Well the women and children were. They were either enslaved or put to the sword. So the option was there - the Banu an-Nadir had friends in the Medinese community though.
Firstly, Banu Quraydha were subjected to the punishment in accordance with their Jewish Law found in the Tauwrat. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not administer the punishment but Saad ibn Muaz (May Allaah be pleased with him). The leaders of Banu Quraydha met him and agreed to submit to whatever punishment they will receive from him.

The punishment was based on the Tauwrat law:
"When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."(Deuteronomy 20:12)
I have no problem with "developed" but it was adopted from the Spanish who took it from the Muslims. Sugar cane too.
Sugarcane cultivation did came from the Muslims but what we’re referring is the capitalist plantation system. And it would be nice for once to present evidence for your fictitious claims.

You are comparing Christian behaviour with Islamic theory again. Of course Islam allowed the enslavement of anyone who was not a Muslim or a Dhimmi in times of war - they did not have to be waging war against Islam. They could be just minding their own business.
I did not know that I was comparing Christian treatment of POWS in Abu Ghraib with Islaamic treatment. I was rather equating it with the modern treatment. Your second point is the exact reason why I feel this discussion is going in circles. Remember that the very nature of a debate is based on facts. Repeating the same assertion does not make it true and it does not evolve into an argument.

That is not what he is expressing surprise at. It is a Muslim story as well and so can hardly be taken seriously as history given how late it is. It means very little really. It may mean he thought the Arabs were racists.
The story was mentioned by an orientalist named SS Leeder in his book Veiled Misteries of Egypt. How does the statement endorse that he thought the Arabs were racists.

Let me also add the rest of the statement.
“Well if the black man must lead, then he must speak gently,” ordered the prelate, “so as not to frighten his white auditors.”
Tabari is not a primary source. I do not see the difference, "Zanj" means what exactly? but I am happy to oblige.
The chronicle of Tabari is the only history source that discusses the Zanj revolt as he witnessed the event. You introduced the Zanj revolt but do not know what Zanj means?

Islam allowed people to produce interpretations of the law that allowed them to do this to these African slaves. They became Muslims even if they became Kharijis. They did commit savage actions like many Kharijis who adopted an extreme form of Islam that made them view all sinners (ie their opponents) as kaffirs. This is not entirely unrelated to Islam although obviously it is not Islam as most people understand it.
Now the question is, what interpretation did "some Muslims" use to justify the enslavement of Africans? Instead of accepting that they did not adhere to the Islaamic teachings, you instead introduced a new excuse that they interpreted the Qur'aan wrongly.


Well correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave did not have the same social rights in early Islam - no doubt you would dispute that and I would get banned so I will stick to the lesser argument and point out that a freed slave was not a free man but a freedman, a malwa. This imposed legal obligations and restrictions. In theory the moral value of a slave's soul might equal that of a free man's, but in the real world, a freed slave was not the same. There are any number of examples. Let me take the most obvious - a freed slave was not free to dispose of his property exactly how he would like. His former owner would inherit part of his estate and this, the wala was heritable.
How would a disputation lead to banning? Banning only occurs when you have violated the forum rules numerous times and so far you haven't.

A freed slave was a free man. Not only didn't you list these so-called restriction and obligations but you misinterpreted the rights of inheritance based on a few hadeeths.

The al-wala (rights of inheritance of a slave) is based on the condition that if a Muslim frees a slave, his inheritance right (al-wala) belongs to the one who manumitted him. That's why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:


"...the Wala is for the one who manumits." (Bukharee).
This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.

Come to that, it is not as if Islamic law is fundamentally different. They simply made the foundling a freed slave - which probably meant a lot more of them died in infancy.
I am amazed at how you have derived such interpretation from a single obvious hadeeth An illegitimate child was not a made a freed slave as the child wasn't a slave in the first place. When 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) said, he is free, he meant that he can go. According to the fiqh of Islaam, an illegimate child is entitled to receive all the rights in a Muslim society as others do. The Muslim community and their government are responsible to spend on them, raise them and educate them. The word wala was used but in the context of the hadeeth, it referred to 'Guardanship' or patron. Therefore, your claim that alot of them died in infancy becomes futile since it's one of the obligations to raise and educate them.

Anyone who challenges that Islaam does not provide equal and just rights to freed slaves and free men is either ignorant of the Islaamic Laws or plain in denial. By studying the lives of former slaves such as Bilaal, Zayd ibn Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with them), reveals the true stance of Islaam in regard to equality in society.

The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is reported to have said:
"Listen and obey if a black slave becomes your leader, so long as he should enforce amongst you the Law of Creator".
Ibn as-Salaah narrated a report which is found in his book Rihlah that az-Zuhree (may Allaah have Mercy on him) related:

“I introduced myself to ‘Abdul-Maalik.
“Where do you come from, Oh az-Zuhree?” he asked me.
I responded, “from Makkah.”
Whom have you left in your place to lead (as Imaams and teachers)
their inhabitants?” he asked me.
“’Ataa Ibn Abee Rabaah,” I answered.
“Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” he asked.
“A freed slave,” I said.
“How can he lead the Makkans?” he asked.
“By Deen (religion) and Sunnah,” I replied.
“Certainly it is suitable that those who possess Deen and Sunnah
lead men. But who then leads the people of Yemen?”
“Ta’oos Ibn Kaysaan,” I answered.
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I responded.

“How can he lead them?” he asked.
“In the same way as ‘Ataa,” I responded.
He then said, “It is suitable that people of this kind lead men, but then who will then lead the people of Egypt?”
I replied, “Yazeed Ibn Abee Habeeb.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
It was the same response as for the others. Then who will lead and
command the people of Syria?” he asked.
I said “Makhoot ad-Dimishqee.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
I replied, “He is a Nubian that was a slave and released by
Hadooyl.”
then ‘Abdul-Maalik asked, “Who
will then lead (in prayer as Imaams and teachers) the people of ‘Iraaq?”
The response, “Maymoon Ibn Mahraam.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
Then who will lead the people of Khurasaan?”
“Ad-Dakhaah Ibn Muzaahin,” I replied.
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I replied"
“Then who leads the people of Basrah?” ‘Abdul-Maalik asked.
I responded, “al-Hasan Ibn Abi’l-Hasan.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I responded.
“And who leads the people of Koofah? Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“An Arab,” I replied.
Abdul-Maalik said, “Oh az-Zuhree you relieve me. By Allaah the
freed slaves rule the Arabs to such an extent that they preach to them
from the pulpits whilst the Arabs remain beneath them.”
“Oh commander of the faithful,” I responded, “such is the will of
Allaah and such is the Deen. Whoever practices it is the leader and
whoever ignores it shall fall."

This example is a stern refutation to the assertion that a freed slave does not have the same rights as a free man.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-13-2006, 05:27 PM
Hello HeiGou,
I noticed that you've brought up the same questions I've already answered before, and you haven't given me a response to my last post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/180143-post88.html

Regards
Reply

Kittygyal
02-13-2006, 05:27 PM
wow intresting ppl :)
Reply

HeiGou
02-14-2006, 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
You did not answer the question. How would one cater for the needs of a large army of freed slaves who were dependent on various families bearing in mind that most of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.
How could one abolish an international custom without introducing disastrous consequences?
And yet people did. Look at the history of America and the Caribbean. Most men work to support themselves. Slaves are no different. In fact it is not likely to be hard as there are unlikely to be many old slaves. People do not feed their animals into retirement. I doubt they fed their slaves much past their useful working lives either.

The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.

Does Islaam allow enslavement of any free man who has not waged war against Islaam? If that was the case, they would have enslaved all the non-Muslims who were living under the Islaamic rule. Moreover, the enslavement of the captives is usually carried out as the last resort. They first serve as an exchange for captured Muslim prisoners. If not, then they are ransomed or freed depending on the situation. As a last resort, they are enslaved and distributed amongst Muslims who take care of them, educate them, etc.
Well Islam does, obviously, allow the enslavement of any free person (not just men) who have not waged war themselves, but just live in a country that is waging war on Islam. What would they do with all those slaves? Better to accept them as dhimmis and make them pay taxes. What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them which, from my reading of Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi's "Al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah", is permissible if the emir so orders. Perhaps I am wrong - if so please correct me.

Why would one want statements from Muslim scholars for something that has been unequivocally recognized in the teachings of Islaam. That’s like asking for statements from Muslim scholars to strengthen the fact that Muslims have monotheistic belief. Why would one ask for more evidence and disregard the previous cited statements and narrations. It's even attested by non-Muslim orientalists that the Islamic system to eradicate slavery would have worked if it was practised throughout the Muslim world.

Annemarie Schimmel:
...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.
Sure, no one is denying this - ultimately, when the entire world is Muslim, when there are no more kafirs to enslave. You can argue that there is some ultimate theoretical horizon there, but it is so extended that it is meaningless. So to ask the question again - can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it? You will notice I am asking for something different.

That's because you're concentrating on the abandonment of the Islaamic teachings. If the Muslim world had practiced the Islaamic teachings throughout the Muslim history, slavery would have disappeared gradually.
I take it we are in agreement that there was no sign of slavery being abolished in the Islamic world before 1800. How exactly would it have disappeared gradually? Surely it would depend on one thing - as long as the rate of freeing slaves out-paced the rate of enslavement and births to slave women. Can you see why that is unlikely to have happened?

This is incorrect. Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity. Free men were not sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For that I require evidence and in the future insha'Allaah, I will require evidence for every claim that you assert. Single lines wouldn't do.
They obviously were a commercial commodity. There were slave markets in most big towns. Islamic literature is replete with references to them. Slaves were drawn from the Caucasus mountains for serve as, among other things, mamluks. This was a purely commercial operation. I do not know how else you sell slaves - perhaps you might like to expand on what you mean. There are not shortage of accounts of them being sold by auction. What sort of evidence do you want? You tell me what you need in terms of proof and I will provide it.

How could one equate alcohol to a worldwide institution? Gradualism is the keyword. Islaam would have abolished slavery in centuries if practised right.
As long as the Muslims conquered the entire world and reduced everyone to dhimmis. Sure. Alcohol was a major industry in the pre-Islamic world. It still is in the non-Islamic world. Banning it put people out of work. What provisions were made to find those people other work or were they left to starve?

There is not a single shred of evidence to support your assertion. Patricia Crone said in The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World regarding the Pre-Islamic raids:
Tribesmen took immense pride in their ability to defend themselves and their dependants, and they regularly boasted of their strength in poetry, giving pleasure to themselves and warning potential predators at the same time. The ability to get the better of others (not of one's own tribe) by taking their camels, abducting their women, killing their men, or slitting the noses of their defenceless slaves was also highly prized.
Here, she lists the options that I have mentioned before and at the same confutes your claim that they did not kill other tribes.
I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so. I like it that you quote Crone. I notice that Crone does not say they did kill the men, just that they prized their ability to do so if they wanted. I can trivially find other scholars that support me. From Philip K. Hitti, "History of the Arabs",

The ghazw (razzia), otherwise considered a form of brigandage, is raised by the economic and social conditions of desert life to the rank of a national institution. It lies at the base of the economic structure of Bedouin pastoral society. In desert land, where the fighting mood is a chronic mental condition, raiding is one of the few manly occupations. ... According to the rules of the game - and ghazw is a sort of national sport - no blood should be shed except in cases of extreme necessity.

You can see the difference is styles of fighting at things like the Battle of the Trench when the pagans just got bored and went home.

Firstly, Banu Quraydha were subjected to the punishment in accordance with their Jewish Law found in the Tauwrat. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not administer the punishment but Saad ibn Muaz (May Allaah be pleased with him). The leaders of Banu Quraydha met him and agreed to submit to whatever punishment they will receive from him.
I am not interested in arguing the justification. I am merely pointing out that there was another option available. Muslims did, as it happen, destroy entire tribes and sell all the women and children into slavery.

Sugarcane cultivation did came from the Muslims but what we’re referring is the capitalist plantation system. And it would be nice for once to present evidence for your fictitious claims.
I notice you have appended the word "capitalist" to that. It will take me a little while to find evidence of it, but it is not a matter of historical dispute. It is not a fictitious claim.

I did not know that I was comparing Christian treatment of POWS in Abu Ghraib with Islaamic treatment.
"Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib."

Funny that. My English is perhaps not as good as it should be, but that looks like a direct comparison of Abu Ghraib with Islamic treatment.

I was rather equating it with the modern treatment. Your second point is the exact reason why I feel this discussion is going in circles. Remember that the very nature of a debate is based on facts. Repeating the same assertion does not make it true and it does not evolve into an argument.
Modern treatment? You mean the treatment by Muslims of POWs? You mean like the American pilot that was raped in Iraq? Or of their own POWs like Algerian treatment of suspected GIA members?

As for going round and round, I think we have clearly established that the Muslims took women as slaves. They did not fight and they were previously free. Moreover there is ample evidence that the Muslims attacked people who were not fighting for instance,

Chapter 1: REGARDING PERMISSION TO MAKE A RAID, WITHOUT AN ULTIMATUM, UPON THE DISBELIEVERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVITED TO ACCEPT ISLAM
Book 019, Number 4292:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Those that fought were killed, the rest enslaves.

The story was mentioned by an orientalist named SS Leeder in his book Veiled Misteries of Egypt. How does the statement endorse that he thought the Arabs were racists.
Obviously I did not say he did. This is a book published by an Orientalist in 1912. It represents an Arab story.

Now the question is, what interpretation did "some Muslims" use to justify the enslavement of Africans? Instead of accepting that they did not adhere to the Islaamic teachings, you instead introduced a new excuse that they interpreted the Qur'aan wrongly.
I am not in a position to judge whether people interpret the Quran correctly or not. So I do not make that claim. What I say is that Muslims came to Africa and raided the non-Muslims for slaves and in doing so did so in the belief that what they were doing was permissible in Islam.

How would a disputation lead to banning? Banning only occurs when you have violated the forum rules numerous times and so far you haven't.
Islamic sites tend to take a rather restrictive view of what is or is not acceptable. Banning is inevitable. However if I argued with a Muslim about whether the early Muslims assumed that to become a Muslim meant becoming an Arab, I think the whole process would be speeded up.

A freed slave was a free man. Not only didn't you list these so-called restriction and obligations but you misinterpreted the rights of inheritance based on a few hadeeths.

The al-wala (rights of inheritance of a slave) is based on the condition that if a Muslim frees a slave, his inheritance right (al-wala) belongs to the one who manumitted him. That's why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:


"...the Wala is for the one who manumits." (Bukharee).
This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.
Well I am happy with that. I do not agree with all of it, but I have no problems with it as it does not contradict what I said. Clearly a freed slaves has fewer and lesser rights than free man. He has a relationship with a man who will inherit part of his estate. A lesser right. Few rights. In Islamic law, a freed man is not the same as a free man.

I am amazed at how you have derived such interpretation from a single obvious hadeeth An illegitimate child was not a made a freed slave as the child wasn't a slave in the first place. When 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) said, he is free, he meant that he can go. According to the fiqh of Islaam, an illegimate child is entitled to receive all the rights in a Muslim society as others do.
I am not talking about illigitimate child but a foundling. And perhaps my words were not chosen well, but his status was not that of a free man but a freed man. Another case with a wala. It is an interesting text but no more.

Anyone who challenges that Islaam does not provide equal and just rights to freed slaves and free men is either ignorant of the Islaamic Laws or plain in denial. By studying the lives of former slaves such as Bilaal, Zayd ibn Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with them), reveals the true stance of Islaam in regard to equality in society.
And yet we have established that a freed man does not have the same rights in inheritance as a free man. No one is disputing that. Justice is one thing. But we all agree on the lack of equality except in a general religious sense. We can all agree that in the eyes of God a man is a man is a man whether slave or not. But as a matter of law, a freedman is not the same as a free one.
Reply

HeiGou
02-14-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
If someone is forbidden to even refer to them as "my slave" it completely demolishes any idea of superiority.
Communists and Socialists refer to each other as "comrade", but it would not do to annoy Mao or President Asad. Superiority is manifested in displays of power over others. You command. They obey. It does not matter if you are dressed the same or not.

False. All human beings are equally important, and only piety distinguishes them in the eyes of God.
In the eyes of God. But Muslim scholars have traditionally taught that the Caliph must come from the Quraysh. And when it comes to the division of the fay there are elements of descent,

From al-Mawardi's book

"The fay is divided in five equal parts:

First, this portion was for the Messenger of Allah..., during his lifetime, and he spent of it to feed himself and his wives, and for his needs and those of the Muslims. People have differed concerning it after his death: those who consider that Prophets may bequeath inheritance say that it is used by his descendents....

Second, this portion is for the close relations of the Prophet. Abu Hanifa claims that their claim to it no longer stands today, while for ash-Shafi'i it does. The close relations refer to the Banu Hashim and the Banu Muttalib, the two sons of Abd Manaf especially and no others from the Quraysh have any other claim.....

Third, this portion goes to needy orphans....

Fourth, this portion is for the miskin....

Fifth, this portion is for travellers...."

So in the eyes of God I agree with you. On this earth, there is an element of descent - especially as the Diwan traditionally handed out pensions based on the date of conversion.

The freeing of slaves, elevation of their status, restricting sources, mandating good treatment - all of this unrooted slavery and paved the way to its abolition.
Where did it uproot slavery? Where in the Islamic world were there no slaves before the West came?

As mentioned in the quotes from historians, Islam preserved much of Africa from slave traders allowing the institution to become gradually weak enough for the world to abolish..
I am sorry I missed any mention by any history that would suggest that anything the Muslims did weakened the institution of slavery or had the slightest impact on Britain. May I ask for that cite again?

Feel free to bring historical evidence to disprove my claims that the Ghassan tribe as a governate and the number of Roman soldiers. Even if we accept what you say, for the sake of argument, the fact still remains that the Romans initiated agressions against the Muslims.
From Philip Hitti,

"About the end of the fifth century they were brought within the sphere of Byzantine political influence and used as a buffer state to stay the overflow of Bedouin hordes, serving a purpose not unlike that of Transjordan under the British today"

I still do not accept the claim that the alleged actions of their client means they started the wars, but it is not worth arguing over.

"good treatment" with one's wife includes having relations if you so wish?
You are making the claim about slave women, not me. Is this what you mean by good treatment?

Feel free to bring historical evidence; I welcome debate that is done in a respectful manner.
Well OK I can only get banned once. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are required to wait the full period of one month before sleeping with your slave girl. Is that right? Yet Muhammed seems to have had relations with Safiya within three days of the fall of Khaybar (I can't quite work it out)

From the Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

It is not an important issue, but it is an interesting point of law and I know there must be an answer to it.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-14-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Communists and Socialists refer to each other as "comrade", but it would not do to annoy Mao or President Asad.
Do they also wear the same clothes and eat the same food?

And when it comes to the division of the fay there are elements of descent
Re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about the specific fiqh rulings with regard to inheritance. I said that all human beings are of equal value in Islam. And Kadafi gave you a list of THIRTY-ONE caliphs who had slave mothers.

Where did it uproot slavery? Where in the Islamic world were there no slaves before the West came?
Everywhere in the Islamic world, the slavery had been weakened and the treatment of slaves improved, which paved the way for its abolition.

I am sorry I missed any mention by any history that would suggest that anything the Muslims did weakened the institution of slavery or had the slightest impact on Britain. May I ask for that cite again?
Edward Blyden, on of the most important Pan-Africanist thinkers of the 19th century, points out that Islam is what saved much of Africa from slavery:
The introduction of Islam into Central and West Africa has been the most important, if not the sole, preservative against the desolations of the slave trade. Islam furnished a protection to the tribes who embraced it by effectively binding them together in one strong fraternity and enabling them by their united efforts to baffle the attempts of powerful pagan slave hunters. (Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, p. 215)

You are making the claim about slave women, not me. Is this what you mean by good treatment?
You didn't answer my question.

Yet Muhammed seems to have had relations with Safiya within three days of the fall of Khaybar (I can't quite work it out)
Becuase she was unmarried and he married her!

Regards
Reply

Truth_Seeker
02-14-2006, 03:48 PM
I got a question again

Say after a war, fighting is finished, muslims have won.
say hypothetically muslim army contained 1000 captives, opposition contained 500 muslims captives. why not as gesture of goodwill have a full swap, muslims ive 1000 back and take all their own captives, since war had finished it would no longer matter
the prisoners held by muslims could go back to their old way of life, as could women, go back to their families etc, rather than be enslaved against their own freewill and made to have sex with strangers. The enslaved women go go back home marry free men from their own cities/villages etc. I'm sure there would still be men around who could get jobs. this would avoid the problem of slavery

Also i am still not 100% convinced of why islam permitted allowing sex with captives. You said they lived together and would always be in same contact. Well why wouldn't the man instead be commanded to marry her rather than encouraged. Or if he was already married why wasn't the woman left at home with his wives and do work there, and have male slaves around him. Either way if at any time he got "excited" or had desire because of close proximity with female slave why didn't he instead take it out on his wive, i mean up to 4 wives were allowed, surely that was enough

Finally i disagaree with your view on how islam would treat slavery today, they would have institutions etc. Again do you honestly think people would not look at how the Prophet SAW dealt with slavery rather than build institutions.
You said before resources etc werent available, but from what i understand you kind of contradict yourself
I asked
2) Also you said how it was impossible for institutions to have been built with the resources they had. Well Allah SWT made the Prophet SAW's whole Seerah a lesson for us, so surely in his infinite power it would have been possible, resources would have been available. Why didn't Allah will it for slavery not to be so deep rooted in society, that way a command could have come down abolishing slavery, rather than all this ambiguity
Your reply was
2. This is like asking, "Why did Allah swt create evil? Surely, in His infinite power He could have placed us all in paradise" or "Why did the Prophet Muhammad pbuh have to flee Makkah - surely Allah could have made him victorious from the start". Were there no slavery there would be no struggle to liberate people.
Well ok then, if it was to be and people were enslaved into hi-tech institutions etc. where would be the test? Where would be the struggle to liberate people?

Jazakallah Khair for read, inshallah i await your reply
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-14-2006, 08:33 PM
:sl: Truth_Seeker,
As you may have noticed the discussion has progressed quite a bit since you last posted. Please read over the discussion as you will find many questions answered.
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
Say after a war, fighting is finished, muslims have won.
say hypothetically muslim army contained 1000 captives, opposition contained 500 muslims captives. why not as gesture of goodwill have a full swap
It all depends on the potantial threat of the enemy and other circumstance. But of course, it is a plausible course of action for an Islamic state.

You said they lived together and would always be in same contact.
It was socially accepted to have relations with one's servants, and as such there was no need to prohibit that once good treatment had been enjoined.
Well why wouldn't the man instead be commanded to marry her rather than encouraged.
I already answered this. Please go back and read what i said about the necessities for marriage.

Finally i disagaree with your view on how islam would treat slavery today, they would have institutions etc. Again do you honestly think people would not look at how the Prophet SAW dealt with slavery rather than build institutions.
I already answered justahumane on the precedents set by the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Please go back and read over the posts.
Well ok then, if it was to be and people were enslaved into hi-tech institutions etc. where would be the test? Where would be the struggle to liberate people?
If I understand your question correctly, you're asking what happens if we now use to institutions instead of slavery? Well that is simply passing the test because then we have sucessfully liberated people and the test moves on.

:w:
Reply

kadafi
02-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
And yet people did. Look at the history of America and the Caribbean. Most men work to support themselves. Slaves are no different. In fact it is not likely to be hard as there are unlikely to be many old slaves. People do not feed their animals into retirement. I doubt they fed their slaves much past their useful working lives either.
The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.
Such statements are a direct insult to those ex-slaves who suffered after the emancipation. Such wishful thinking should be completely avoided in a discussion as it's a logical fallacy.

After Lincon issued the Emancipation proclamation, ex-slaves found it difficult to integrate in to the 'white' society. The white community still regarded the black people as inferior beings who did not deserve the full citizen rights. This is exactly the same mindset that Islam was trying to tackle.


Many states had different laws so not to elongate the post, I will only cite the Louisiana one.

Section 1. Be it ordained by the police jury of the parish of St. Landry, That no negro shall be allowed to pass within the limits of said parish without special permit in writing from his employer. Whoever shall violate this provision shall pay a fine of two dollars and fifty cents, or in default thereof shall be forced to work four days on the public road, or suffer corporeal punishment as provided hereinafter.

Section 3, of the Louisiana Black Code states “No negro shall be permitted to rent or keep a house within said parish.”


Section 9 declares that “No negro shall sell, barter, or exchange any articles of merchandise or traffic within said parish.”

Section 4 of the Louisiana Black Code. “Every negro is required to be in the regular service of some white person, or former owner, who shall be held responsible for the conductor of said negro.”

Section 5, No public meetings or congregations of negroes shall be allowed within said parish after sunset; but such public meetings and congregations may be held between the hours of sunrise and sunset, by the special permission in writing of the captain of patrol, within whose beat such meetings shall take place

Section 6 No negro shall be permitted to preach, exhort, or otherwise declaim to congregations of coloured people, without a special permission in writing from the president of the police jury

Section 7 No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.

Section 8 No negro shall sell, barter, or exchange any articles of merchandise or traffic within said parish without the special written permission of his employer, specifying the article of sale, barter or traffic
Many ex-slaves went back to their former masters as they did not know what to do execept work in farms and plantations. This reminds me of what Tocqueville wrote in his book Democracy in America:
The Negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence... The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against... the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race and the prejudice of colour.
Charles H. Nichols comments on this quote in his book 'Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom':
It is nearly a century since the Emancipation, and this baleful observation by the author of Democracy in America has, for any informed person, an irrefutable kernel of truth. The vexed question of colon and democracy has just been forced on the agenda, and the western world has at last begun to act on it. Slavery created patterns of life which are still very much in evidence in America. Furthermore, "white supremacy" propagated by the slave-owning mentality has been a cardinal principle in the American creed, little affected by logical argument and statistics on Negro achievement.
Let's not forget the white supremacist groups that sprung up after the emancipation. The "heroic" men -- "The Knights of the White Camellias," the "Ku-Klux-Klan," "The White League," "The Southern Cross" -- began their reign of terror. The cross burning in the night, the beating, shooting and torture of black people, the lynch mob were much in evidence.

Redding quotes one of their speeches in They Came in Chains:
Let every man at the South, through whose veins the unalloyed Caucasian blood courses, who is not a vile adventurer or carpetbagger, forthwith align himself in the rapidly increasing ranks of his species, so that we may the sooner overwhelmingly crush, with one mighty blow, the preposterous wicked dogma of negro equality! We must render this either a white man's government of convert the land into a negro man's cemetery.
One ex-slave said:
"The Ku Klux kept the coloured men scared. They cowed them down so that they wouldn't go to the polls ... They killed many coloured people down there."
Another one declared:
When I was a boy on the Gilmore place the Ku Klux would come along at night a-riding the coloured men like they was goats. Yes sir, they had 'em down on all fours a-crawling, and they would be on their backs. They would carry the coloured men to Turk Creek bridge and make them set up on the banisters of the bridge and then they would shoot 'em offen the banisters into the water.
Rayford Logan said in 'The Negro in American Life and Thought' that two hundred Negroes were killed in the week before the city election of 1874

Charles writes in Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:
The civil officers of Mississippi, for example, were empowered to arrest and return to his "master" any Negro who dared to run away from his job. As a matter of fact many of the freed slaves were so desperately poor that they willingly worked for board and keep. Others were forced back into bondage. One ex-slave told a W. P. A. interviewer that he had been subjected to this form of peonage in Mississippi for forty years!
He quotes the account of the ex-slave who said:
I couldn't git away 'cause they watched us with guns all the time. When the levee busted that kinda freed me. Man, they was devils; they wouldn't 'low you to go nowhere -- not even to church. You done good to git something to eat. They wouldn't give you no clothes, and if you got wet you just had to lay down in what you got wet in . . . If you didn't work in a hurry, they would whip you with a strap that had five-six holes in it. I ain't talking 'bout what I heard -- I'm talking 'bout what I done seed . . . I done seen Mack Williams kill folks, and I done seen him have folks killed. One day he told me that if my wife had been good looking, I never would sleep with her again 'cause he'd kill me and take her and raise childrens offen her. They used to take women away from their husbands, and put with some other man to breed just like they would do cattle. They always kept a man penned up, and they used him like a stud hoss. When you didn't do right, Old Mack Williams would shoot you or tie a chain round your neck and throw you in the river ...
He further writes:
Job discrimination against the Negro is, of course, a well known story all over America. In general American employers have hired Negroes in other than unskilled and domestic work only as a last resort. The late Senator Bilbo of Mississippi expressed the sentiments of many southerners when he declared that he would sooner lose the war to Hitler than abolish restrictions against Negro employment or do away with segregation in the army. The discrimination is perpetuated not only by industry, but also by unions and even the Federal government. Myrdal insists that a tradition of human exploitation -- and now not only of Negroes -has remained from slavery as a chief determinant of the entire structure of the South's economic life. The observer is told that a great number of fortunes are achieved by petty exploitation of the poor, a practice sometimes belonging to the type referred to in that region as 'mattressing the ------s'. . . The explanation for the economic backwardness of the South must be carried down to the rigid institutional structure of the economic life of the region which, historically, is derived from slavery and, psychologically, is rooted in the minds of the people.
I could go on quoting the consequences but these above statements will serve as a good example.

Well Islam does, obviously, allow the enslavement of any free person (not just men) who have not waged war themselves, but just live in a country that is waging war on Islam. What would they do with all those slaves? Better to accept them as dhimmis and make them pay taxes. What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them which, from my reading of Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi's "Al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah", is permissible if the emir so orders. Perhaps I am wrong - if so please correct me.
Islaam does not allow any enslavement of any free person who doesn't wage war against Islaam.

Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to Usamah bin Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with him):
See that you avoid treachery. Depart not in any wise from the right. Do not mutilate any one. You should not kill children, women or old men. Do not injure the date palm; do not burn it. Do not cut down any tree wherein there is food for men and beasts. Do not slay the flocks of herds of camels save for needful sustenance. You may eat of the meat that the men of the land may bring to you in their vessels, making mention thereon of the name of Allah. Do not molest the monks in the churches, and leave them to themselves. Now march forward in the name of Allaah. Fulfill the mission entrusted to you. May Allah protect you from sword and pestilence!
If Islaam allowed the enslavement of any individual who lives in the land of the enemy, then Abu Bakr who was the first rightly guided Caliph would have instructed and commanded it. Furthermore, Islaam enslaves the captives as a last resort. I explictly wrote in my last post to cite any Islaamic evidence if you're going to refer to the Islaamic law.

If one wants to the read the ethics of warfare in Islaam, please refer to the article produced by islamtoday where they refer to the views of some of the salaf such as Ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him). The governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, brought a prisoner in irons to Ibn 'Umar and ordered him to come up and kill him. Ibn Umar refused, saying: "This is not the way we do things. Allaah says: 'either generosity or ransom' and He does not say anything about killing them."

Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali jurist, writes:
"The correct position on the matter is that if an enemy soldier is captured, it becomes unlawful to kill him." This is the official position of the Hanbali School of Law. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamimi claims that this was an ijma among the Sahabas.
It also discusses that POWs can be killed if they are guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.

For more information:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english//s...sub_cat_id=491


Malise Ruthven writes:
Restrictions were placed on enslavement. It was forbidden to enslave free members of Islamic society, including dhimmis (nonMuslims) residing in dar al-Islam.
Marjorie Kelly writes in Islam: The Religious and Political Life of a World Community:
Because of socioeconomic considerations, however, slavery was not abolished.
John L. Esposito writes in Islam and Politics:
Slavery had long existed among the Arabs. Although the Quran commanded the just and humane treatment of slaves ( 4:40, 16:73) and regarded their emancipation as a meritorious act, the system of slavery was adopted in modified form. Only captives in battle could be taken as slaves. Neither Muslims nor Jews and Christians could be enslaved in early Islam.
Kenneth W. Morgan writes in Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims
Slavery was customary at the time that Islam was revealed, but Islam prepared the grounds for its elimination. It encourages the emancipation of slaves by giving them the possibility of purchasing their freedom, it urges that part of zakat be given to slaves to help them free themselves, and it offers the possibility of atonement for certain sins, such as having sexual intercourse during fasting days, by releasing slaves.
Sure, no one is denying this - ultimately, when the entire world is Muslim, when there are no more kafirs to enslave. You can argue that there is some ultimate theoretical horizon there, but it is so extended that it is meaningless. So to ask the question again - can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it? You will notice I am asking for something different.
Your premise from that statement is indeed flawed. It's based on the presumption that the Khilafah will continous defend themselves from agression and enslave every POW that they obtain. This is fallacious. Enslavement of a captive is based on the third option and the scenario whilst the first two options are to free them generously or or ransom them, respectively. As for the last point, read my previous response.

I take it we are in agreement that there was no sign of slavery being abolished in the Islamic world before 1800. How exactly would it have disappeared gradually? Surely it would depend on one thing - as long as the rate of freeing slaves out-paced the rate of enslavement and births to slave women. Can you see why that is unlikely to have happened?
Not quite.

1. It made freeing slaves a highly desirable act
2. Freeing slaves by paying expiations. For examples:
2.a When a person kills somebody by mistake, he has to free a slave.
2.b When a person makes DHIHAR on his wife, i.e., comparing the wife to the mother's back by saying to her: You are to me like the back of my mother, (i.e., unlawful for me to approach).
2.c When one makes sexual intercourse in the day of Ramadan.
2.d When a person breaks his oath, he has to free a slave.
3. Granting emancipating through al-Mukataba ((the slave buys himself from his master by paying instalments)
4. Granting freedom through the state welfare.
5. Freeing any woman with a child from her master as soon as the latter dies.
6. Freeing any slave who was beaten unfairly.

So many different ways of manumission and only one way of acquiring slaves (prisoners of war) and enslavement of POWS is still the last resort. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), after the fall of Makkah, said to its inhabitants: "You may go, for I give you your freedom."

Highly unlikely? I think not.

They obviously were a commercial commodity. There were slave markets in most big towns. Islamic literature is replete with references to them. Slaves were drawn from the Caucasus mountains for serve as, among other things, mamluks. This was a purely commercial operation. I do not know how else you sell slaves - perhaps you might like to expand on what you mean. There are not shortage of accounts of them being sold by auction. What sort of evidence do you want? You tell me what you need in terms of proof and I will provide it.
I clearly said "Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity." and you responded to that by citing the examples of the later generations? Could you list examples where the sahabas enslaved free individuals and sold them like products?

Sure. Alcohol was a major industry in the pre-Islamic world. It still is in the non-Islamic world. Banning it put people out of work. What provisions were made to find those people other work or were they left to starve?
Such question doesn't even deserve an answer. I am propelled by the illogical questions that you seem to be asking. Alcohol was indeed prominent in the days of Ignorance. Those who engaged in the sale of alcohol were usually wealthy business men as opposed to poor individuals. Furthermore, not many people engaged in the selling of alcohol. Allaah (Exalted is He) gradually prohibited alcohol in 3 stages during the course of 3 years. Compare that to slavery where every household had at least one slave. This also proves my point that alcohol which was actually a minor social evil was abolished over a course of years and slavery which was a large-scale problem was given more time.

I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so. I like it that you quote Crone. I notice that Crone does not say they did kill the men, just that they prized their ability to do so if they wanted. I can trivially find other scholars that support me. From Philip K. Hitti, "History of the Arabs",
What Hitti is referring are the sports raids between the pastoral tribes while the quote that I have stated refers the sedentary tribes, who were larger than the pastoral tribes. An example that comes in my mind are the pagan tribes of Khazraj and the Aus who had been fighting and raiding each other for four decades.

As for the battle of Ahzab, the tribes were exhausted, not bored. It was winter, and the supply of food and water and forage was becoming more and more scarce every. Furthermore, Nu'aim bin Masood (May Allaah be pleased with him) who worked as a spy caused divisions between the besiegers. A severe windstorm accompanied by thunder and lightning hit the besiegers' camp which added cold and darkness. This put them in disarray which caused them to return to their homes. Boredom? Certainly not.

I am not interested in arguing the justification. I am merely pointing out that there was another option available. Muslims did, as it happen, destroy entire tribes and sell all the women and children into slavery.
Why did you think I cited banu Quraydha? It was the only tribe that was subjected to slavery and not to mention the fact that it was based on the Jewish Law since they wouldn't accept the Islaamic Law. Tell me, which other tribe was enslaved apart from Quraydha.

Hostile Banu Al-Mustaliq - taken captives and freed later and as a result, embraced Islaam. Banu Hawazin taken captive, and then freed.

Tell me, which tribes did the sahabas [destroy] and sell them into slavery?

I notice you have appended the word "capitalist" to that. It will take me a little while to find evidence of it, but it is not a matter of historical dispute. It is not a fictitious claim.
I am still waiting for this so-called evidence. The reason why I added the word captalist is that the plantation system in the Americas was an unique which imposed many hardship to the slaves.

Funny that. My English is perhaps not as good as it should be, but that looks like a direct comparison of Abu Ghraib with Islamic treatment.
Re-read what I wrote. I never introduced 'Christian treatment', rahter I used the phrase 'modern treatment'.

As for going round and round, I think we have clearly established that the Muslims took women as slaves. They did not fight and they were previously free.
Muslims did not enslave women that did not wage war against Islaam. For that you have to provide evidence. I will ignore your unsubstained assertions next time.

Moreover there is ample evidence that the Muslims attacked people who were not fighting for instance,
This reveals your lack of knowledge in Islamic history while you continually search for hadeeths without inquiring what it means. Not only that, but it shows your bias and total lack of analyzing the hadeeth.

Banu Al-Mustaliq was a tribe who were planning an invasion of Madinah and kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet thereupon led a Muslim force and confronted them, he gave them the option to submit or chose to fight. There was a duel and after that, the tribe lost the will to fight. The Prophet captivated them and freed them which result them to enter Islaam with honour. The hadeeth you quoted explictly said imprisoned (captivated). Please tell me where it says they were enslaved.

Obviously I did not say he did. This is a book published by an Orientalist in 1912. It represents an Arab story.
It's an authentic story otherwise Leeder wouldn't have reported it.

I am not in a position to judge whether people interpret the Quran correctly or not. So I do not make that claim. What I say is that Muslims came to Africa and raided the non-Muslims for slaves and in doing so did so in the belief that what they were doing was permissible in Islam.
Concentrating on the few bad applies while negating what Islaam did for Africa is a frequently employed tactic by those who wish to attack Islaam.

Reverend Bosworth-Smith says:

“Nor as to the effects of Islam when first embraced by a Negro tribe, can there, when viewed as a whole, be any reasonable doubt. Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule becomes a comparatively rare exception. Though polygamy is allowed by the Koran, it is not common in practice, and, beyond the limits laid down by the Prophet, incontinence is rare; chastity is looked upon as one of the highest, and becomes, in fact, one of the commoner virtues. It is idleness henceforth that degrades, and industry that elevates, instead of the reverse. Offences are henceforth measured by a written code instead of the arbitrary caprice of a chieftain-a step, as every one will admit, of vast importance in the progress of a tribe.”
He adds:
“Truly if the question must be put, whether it is Mohammadan or Christian nations that have done most for Africa, the answer must be that it is not the Christian. Christian travelers, with every wish to think otherwise have remarked that the Negro who accepts Mohammadanism acquires at once a sense of dignity of human nature not commonly found even among those who have been brought to accept Christianity. Here we find in central Africa, the use of decent clothing, the arts of reading and writing and, what is more, which had forbidden and to a great extent, has abolished immodest dancing and gambling and drinking, which inculcated upon the whole a pure morality, and sets forth a sublime and at the same time, a simple theology, is surely deserving of other feelings than the hatred and the contempt which some portions of our religion’s press habitually pour onto it."
Lancelot Lawton writes:
“As a religion the Mohammadan religion, it must be confessed, is more suited to Africa than is the Christian religion; indeed, I would even say that it is suited to the world as a whole.”
Islamic sites tend to take a rather restrictive view of what is or is not acceptable. Banning is inevitable. However if I argued with a Muslim about whether the early Muslims assumed that to become a Muslim meant becoming an Arab, I think the whole process would be speeded up.
Substantial criticism is one thing but repeating assertions is another thing. If you want to have a fruitful discussion with a Muslim, you have to present your argument in a factual manner. I have witnessed several non-Muslims coming on the forum and repeating the same old allegation without providing any evidence and then question why they are banned. This is not a bash and run forum, this is a factual discussion forum.

Well I am happy with that. I do not agree with all of it, but I have no problems with it as it does not contradict what I said. Clearly a freed slaves has fewer and lesser rights than free man. He has a relationship with a man who will inherit part of his estate. A lesser right. Few rights. In Islamic law, a freed man is not the same as a free man.
It totally contradicts what you have stated. I provided an explanation where it opposed your argument that they do not have the same rights. If the previous owner has to provide for the freed slave, doesn't that indicate he be his patron (wala) and inherit when he dies. It's called justice. I am still waiting for the "few rights" that you claimed in a couple posts back. A freed man is the same as a free man.

You have also ignored the discourse that I posted between two Muslims where a freed slave ruled an entire government.

I am not talking about illigitimate child but a foundling. And perhaps my words were not chosen well, but his status was not that of a free man but a freed man. Another case with a wala. It is an interesting text but no more.
An illegitimate child or a foundling, they all came under the same category and that is that the Muslim society has to provide for them. Where does it state that he becomes a freed slave? I have already provided the fiqh on foundlings and their status.

And yet we have established that a freed man does not have the same rights in inheritance as a free man. No one is disputing that. Justice is one thing. But we all agree on the lack of equality except in a general religious sense. We can all agree that in the eyes of God a man is a man is a man whether slave or not. But as a matter of law, a freedman is not the same as a free one.
I will quote myself:
This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.
So a slave who bought his freedom and is classified as a freed slave, does the wala apply? Then why seem to take the term freed man so strict as brush all freed slaves regardless how they obtained their freedom as the same. If you can't see the justice in that, then I clearly want to know your [definition] of justice.
Reply

SuperJatt
02-17-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
:sl:

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

:w:
I don't know about the Islamic issue, however from my understanding. Firstly, they are not called salves they are called concubines. And were the spoils of war after you have won a war with your enemies it was a common practice to take concubines. Its hard to understand why this happened but it was a common practice all around the world.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-19-2006, 03:06 PM
Aslanis,
If you wish to psot in this thread, please respond to the points that have already been raised. Do not simply copy material from other websites as we are not going to repeat ourselves. Everything has already been explained.
Reply

HeiGou
02-21-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Such statements are a direct insult to those ex-slaves who suffered after the emancipation. Such wishful thinking should be completely avoided in a discussion as it's a logical fallacy.
As opposed to the assumption that slaves are too stupid and lazy to be able to support themselves - they need a master to look after them? I am intrgued by your sense of insult.

What is the logical fallacy here?

After Lincon issued the Emancipation proclamation, ex-slaves found it difficult to integrate in to the 'white' society. The white community still regarded the black people as inferior beings who did not deserve the full citizen rights. This is exactly the same mindset that Islam was trying to tackle.
Sure. Because of racism, not because of the problems of freedom. This is not the mind set Islam was trying to tackle. As it happens the standard orthodox interpretation of Islam condemned racism. But then pre-Islam the Arabs were not notably racist anyway so Islam did little to change that.

Many ex-slaves went back to their former masters as they did not know what to do execept work in farms and plantations.
What is your source for this odd claim? You may notice that your source below directly contradicts it.

This reminds me of what Tocqueville wrote in his book Democracy in America:[INDENT]The Negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence... The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against... the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race and the prejudice of colour.
Again you are blurring racism and slavery. As the Muslims were not racists it does not apply. In fact as far as I can see this does not apply to this thread at all. Perhaps you might like to explain why you think it does?

Charles writes in Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:
[INDENT]The civil officers of Mississippi, for example, were empowered to arrest and return to his "master" any Negro who dared to run away from his job. As a matter of fact many of the freed slaves were so desperately poor that they willingly worked for board and keep. Others were forced back into bondage. One ex-slave told a W. P. A. interviewer that he had been subjected to this form of peonage in Mississippi for forty years!
Which is an outrage - based on forcing people to work for their former masters during the post-Reconstruction period. Notice, of course, the basic assumption that former slaves did not normally work for their former masters and had to be forced to do so. Obviously most of them were perfectly capable of feeding themselves and would not have worked for their former owners unless forced to.

Islaam does not allow any enslavement of any free person who doesn't wage war against Islaam.
I will continue to quibble a little, but I am more or less in agreement with that. Notice that differs from the original claim that Islam does not allow the enslavement of any free person.

Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to Usamah bin Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with him):
See that you avoid treachery. Depart not in any wise from the right. Do not mutilate any one. You should not kill children, women or old men. Do not injure the date palm; do not burn it. Do not cut down any tree wherein there is food for men and beasts. Do not slay the flocks of herds of camels save for needful sustenance. You may eat of the meat that the men of the land may bring to you in their vessels, making mention thereon of the name of Allah. Do not molest the monks in the churches, and leave them to themselves. Now march forward in the name of Allaah. Fulfill the mission entrusted to you. May Allah protect you from sword and pestilence!
If Islaam allowed the enslavement of any individual who lives in the land of the enemy, then Abu Bakr who was the first rightly guided Caliph would have instructed and commanded it. Furthermore, Islaam enslaves the captives as a last resort. I explictly wrote in my last post to cite any Islaamic evidence if you're going to refer to the Islaamic law.
He did not instruct the soldiers to breathe. He did not instruct them to eat and drink. Why would he command the obvious? You will notice that he does not forbid the enslavement of the men either. Evidence of what? The enslavement of men who did not fight?

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4292:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m". ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali jurist, writes:
"The correct position on the matter is that if an enemy soldier is captured, it becomes unlawful to kill him." This is the official position of the Hanbali School of Law. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamimi claims that this was an ijma among the Sahabas.
It also discusses that POWs can be killed if they are guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.
Sure. Once they have been granted protection. Does this mean they are not enslaved though?

Malise Ruthven writes:
Restrictions were placed on enslavement. It was forbidden to enslave free members of Islamic society, including dhimmis (nonMuslims) residing in dar al-Islam.
Oddly enough he does not say it was forbidden to enslave non-Muslims residing in the Dar al-Harb. Why is that do you think?

Marjorie Kelly writes in Islam: The Religious and Political Life of a World Community:
Because of socioeconomic considerations, however, slavery was not abolished.
Sure - if you are a secularist. If not you might think God had views on the subject. The alternative was work for all Muslims.

John L. Esposito writes in Islam and Politics:
Slavery had long existed among the Arabs. Although the Quran commanded the just and humane treatment of slaves ( 4:40, 16:73) and regarded their emancipation as a meritorious act, the system of slavery was adopted in modified form. Only captives in battle could be taken as slaves. Neither Muslims nor Jews and Christians could be enslaved in early Islam.
In early Islam. Be careful because you may associate yourself with someone who follows Crone et al.

Kenneth W. Morgan writes in Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims
Slavery was customary at the time that Islam was revealed, but Islam prepared the grounds for its elimination. It encourages the emancipation of slaves by giving them the possibility of purchasing their freedom, it urges that part of zakat be given to slaves to help them free themselves, and it offers the possibility of atonement for certain sins, such as having sexual intercourse during fasting days, by releasing slaves.
"Prepared the ground" being, I assume, typical apologetics that should not be taken seriously.

Sure, no one is denying this - ultimately, when the entire world is Muslim, when there are no more kafirs to enslave. You can argue that there is some ultimate theoretical horizon there, but it is so extended that it is meaningless. So to ask the question again - can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it? You will notice I am asking for something different.
Your premise from that statement is indeed flawed. It's based on the presumption that the Khilafah will continous defend themselves from agression and enslave every POW that they obtain. This is fallacious. Enslavement of a captive is based on the third option and the scenario whilst the first two options are to free them generously or or ransom them, respectively. As for the last point, read my previous response.
It is manifestly not based on a presumption about defence from aggression. Nor is it based on an assumption that they will enslave every prisoner they take. Indeed either of those claims are relevant to what I said. There is no need to read your previous response, because you have not responded to what I said yet. Perhaps you might like to respond to the text I have included again above?

I take it we are in agreement that there was no sign of slavery being abolished in the Islamic world before 1800. How exactly would it have disappeared gradually? Surely it would depend on one thing - as long as the rate of freeing slaves out-paced the rate of enslavement and births to slave women. Can you see why that is unlikely to have happened?
Not quite.

1. It made freeing slaves a highly desirable act
2. Freeing slaves by paying expiations.
3. Granting emancipating through al-Mukataba ((the slave buys himself from his master by paying instalments)
4. Granting freedom through the state welfare.
5. Freeing any woman with a child from her master as soon as the latter dies.
6. Freeing any slave who was beaten unfairly.

So many different ways of manumission and only one way of acquiring slaves (prisoners of war) and enslavement of POWS is still the last resort. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), after the fall of Makkah, said to its inhabitants: "You may go, for I give you your freedom."
Of course. He also said that the Quraysh would never be slaves - they are his own people after all. But your comments are not relevant. As I said, surely it would depend on whether the rate of freeing out-paced the rate of enslavement. And there is still no evidence that this was ever the case. In fact I know of no Islamic society without slaves and I assume you do not either.

I clearly said "Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity." and you responded to that by citing the examples of the later generations? Could you list examples where the sahabas enslaved free individuals and sold them like products?
According to Ibn Ishaq, “Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd with some of the captive women of the Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” [Sira, p. 466 reproduced in Tabari Vol 8, p 39]

Admittedly the slave market in Arabia does not seem to have been big, but may I ask - does Islamic law forbid the sale of slaves as commodities?

Sure. Alcohol was a major industry in the pre-Islamic world. It still is in the non-Islamic world. Banning it put people out of work. What provisions were made to find those people other work or were they left to starve?
Such question doesn't even deserve an answer. I am propelled by the illogical questions that you seem to be asking. Alcohol was indeed prominent in the days of Ignorance. Those who engaged in the sale of alcohol were usually wealthy business men as opposed to poor individuals. Furthermore, not many people engaged in the selling of alcohol. Allaah (Exalted is He) gradually prohibited alcohol in 3 stages during the course of 3 years. Compare that to slavery where every household had at least one slave. This also proves my point that alcohol which was actually a minor social evil was abolished over a course of years and slavery which was a large-scale problem was given more time.
What is your evidence for these claims abotu the producers of alcohol?

If alcohol was such a big social problem, it must have been a major industry.

God did gradually abolish alcohol production and consumption. He could have gradually banned slavery too. But He did not in the Islamic world. He did, in the end, in the West.

What Hitti is referring are the sports raids between the pastoral tribes while the quote that I have stated refers the sedentary tribes, who were larger than the pastoral tribes. An example that comes in my mind are the pagan tribes of Khazraj and the Aus who had been fighting and raiding each other for four decades.
I am perfectly content to note it referred to the bedouin. Of course if any sedentary trbie fought for forty years it is unlikely to have been a notably bloody affair. World War Two only lasted six.

As for the battle of Ahzab, the tribes were exhausted, not bored. It was winter, and the supply of food and water and forage was becoming more and more scarce every. Furthermore, Nu'aim bin Masood (May Allaah be pleased with him) who worked as a spy caused divisions between the besiegers. A severe windstorm accompanied by thunder and lightning hit the besiegers' camp which added cold and darkness. This put them in disarray which caused them to return to their homes. Boredom? Certainly not.
If you like. Clearly they were not particularly dedicated or ruthless. They did not fight that way. They were refused an opportunity to fight like men usually did - man to man - by the Trench. Faced with bad weather, and a lack of planning for what to do if the Muslims refused to fight and hence a lack of food, they went home. As I said.

Why did you think I cited banu Quraydha? It was the only tribe that was subjected to slavery and not to mention the fact that it was based on the Jewish Law since they wouldn't accept the Islaamic Law. Tell me, which other tribe was enslaved apart from Quraydha.
A segue into another claim. You will notice the two other Jewish tribes were exiled. So the choice was not slavery or freedom. There was mass murder and exile as well.

Muslims did not enslave women that did not wage war against Islaam. For that you have to provide evidence. I will ignore your unsubstained assertions next time.
Well we have seen that with the Banu Mustaliq already. In fact women very rarely fought but were very often enslaved.

This reveals your lack of knowledge in Islamic history while you continually search for hadeeths without inquiring what it means. Not only that, but it shows your bias and total lack of analyzing the hadeeth.
Actually I did think about what it meant. I asked too. You ask for evidence. I provide it. If my explanation is wrong I am happy to hear your views.

Banu Al-Mustaliq was a tribe who were planning an invasion of Madinah and kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet thereupon led a Muslim force and confronted them, he gave them the option to submit or chose to fight. There was a duel and after that, the tribe lost the will to fight. The Prophet captivated them and freed them which result them to enter Islaam with honour. The hadeeth you quoted explictly said imprisoned (captivated). Please tell me where it says they were enslaved.
Another tribe planning another attack against Muhammed. I will merely point out this is utterly irrelevant. They were not fighting, they were surprised. The Hadith clearly says so and you have not explained to me why that hadith is wrong. They were made captive - which as we have shown, means they were enslaved. As it happens they became Muslims and Muhammed had to ask for them to be freed. Which the Muslims did.

It's an authentic story otherwise Leeder wouldn't have reported it.
First of all that is an absurd claim. It is simply not true that everything in any work by any Orientalist is true because it is printed. Second Leeder does not make that claim - he reports an Arab making that claim. Third Leeder does not even endorse it. Fourth, of course, it is irrelevant. Slave raiding by Muslims forced Africans to become Muslims out of protection - which moved the frontier of raiding further South. If they had been raided by Christians they could have converted to Christianity and won the same protection. It has nothing to do with Islam per se.

Concentrating on the few bad applies while negating what Islaam did for Africa is a frequently employed tactic by those who wish to attack Islaam.
And ignoring what pious Muslims did in the belief it was Islam because it is no longer socially acceptable, is a frequently employed tactic of apologists for Islam. Why shouldn't I take Islamic reformists seriously?

Reverend Bosworth-Smith says:
Nothing of any relevance

Lancelot Lawton writes:
Nothing of any relevance.

It totally contradicts what you have stated. I provided an explanation where it opposed your argument that they do not have the same rights. If the previous owner has to provide for the freed slave, doesn't that indicate he be his patron (wala) and inherit when he dies. It's called justice. I am still waiting for the "few rights" that you claimed in a couple posts back. A freed man is the same as a free man.
It does nothing to contradict what I said. In fact it clearly shows that what I said was true. They do not have the same rights. An example of this is the problem of wills and inheritance. Freed slaves have different rights to free men. Simple. It may be justice. I do not care if you call it that. It is still not the same as or equal to. I think I said fewer rights, but I am happy to be corrected. A freedman is not the same as a free man except in the eyes of God. The wala is proof of that.

You have also ignored the discourse that I posted between two Muslims where a freed slave ruled an entire government.
Because it is not relevant. What did I say that might have any bearing on the subject?
Reply

HeiGou
02-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Do they also wear the same clothes and eat the same food?
Do they claim that theoretically they should? Absolutely. Same as Islam. Do they? Well of course not. Same as the Muslim world.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about the specific fiqh rulings with regard to inheritance. I said that all human beings are of equal value in Islam. And Kadafi gave you a list of THIRTY-ONE caliphs who had slave mothers.
Then you are not talking about anything I have said as I have repeatedly pointed out that souls have equal value in Islam, but that in Islamic law, the Freedman is not the same as the Free and, by way of extention, Islamic law recognises descent to a small extent. The slave mothers issue is irrelevant. Who is denying it?

Everywhere in the Islamic world, the slavery had been weakened and the treatment of slaves improved, which paved the way for its abolition.
Is that you agreeing that it had not been abolished anywhere until the British came?

Becuase she was unmarried and he married her!
Well she was widowed, not unmarried as such. Surely he should have waited a full month before having sexual relations with her?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-21-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Do they claim that theoretically they should? Absolutely. Same as Islam. Do they? Well of course not. Same as the Muslim world.
You continually drag the discussion away from what Islamic law states to your imaginative ideas of what possibly might have been done by some Muslims, which is of course irrelevant. If a Muslim followed the laws of eating the same food and sharing the same clothes and calling them servant with respect, then of course there is no sense of superiority.

Then you are not talking about anything I have said as I have repeatedly pointed out that souls have equal value in Islam, but that in Islamic law, the Freedman is not the same as the Free and, by way of extention, Islamic law recognises descent to a small extent.
You attempted to indicate that a freed man was inferior to a free man, a claim which was soundly debunked. Both have equal rights and the only issues you raised about inheritance was concerning the Prophet's descendants, not slaves!

The slave mothers issue is irrelevant. Who is denying it?
So you admit that Islam took slaves from their lowly position and elevated them to leaders of the Islamic empire?

Is that you agreeing that it had not been abolished anywhere until the British came?
The British colonialists who subjugated and enslaved the African peoples?

While it may not have been decisively abolished, Islam elevated slaves in society, making them rulers, leaders and scholars. All of this paved the way for the abolishment of slavery.

Well she was widowed, not unmarried as such. Surely he should have waited a full month before having sexual relations with her?
First of all, she was not a slave, so her case is irrelevant to the discussion. She was a non-muslim woman who converted to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her. At any rate, it is recorded in Sirah An-Nabawiyah by Ibn Kathir, vol 3, p. 288 that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her after waiting after her period to determine that she was not pregnant. This is in accordance with the hadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Sexual intercourse is not allowed with a pregnant woman until she gives birth and with a woman who is not pregnant until she passes one menstrual period.” [Musnad Ahmad(3/28), Sunan Abu Dâwûd (2157), and Mustadrak al-Hâkim (2/212). Al-Hâkim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Muslim”.]
Reply

Jeness18
02-21-2006, 11:06 PM
Is there a possibility for slavery to come back-Under issues according to Islam? or just on its own and no religion involved...?
Reply

Chuck
02-22-2006, 03:06 AM
Originally Posted by Jeness18
Is there a possibility for slavery to come back-Under issues according to Islam? or just on its own and no religion involved...?
Depends sister.
There are evil people in every society, culture, and religion. And when they get influential they bring bad to the society in general. If all people follow their Abrahamic religion(s) properly then there won't be any slaves in the first place. Regarding Islam, Islam gives slaves the right to be treated equally and slaves have the right to earn their freedom if they want to.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
As opposed to the assumption that slaves are too stupid and lazy to be able to support themselves - they need a master to look after them?
[Br. Kadafi and Ansar have already address some points that were addressed to me, so I won't go through them]
Supporting oneself is not as easy as you are making it out to be esp. in desert.
i) One needs a capital to start a business.
ii) One needs skills that have favorable demand, supply, and environment to make a living out of it.

I've been to villages in deserts and life is very harsh there. Land is abundant but the climate is not suitable to start even plantations there. Most likely a person would find a job herding local animals, repairing houses & farms, limited vet and medical jobs, etc.... overall demand is very low, which is insufficient serve large supply of labor.

All the examples you have given are very vague in this regard. They are not specific or concrete enough to show the ground realities of that time. What if freeing them all made most of them die out of hunger due to the lack of money paying jobs? What if most of them moved to other lands in search of jobs, and taken slaves, without any rights, and treated very badly? Impartial person looking at both sides of the coin should keep these points in mind too.

However, what we do know is that Islam has given slaves the right to free themselves, which is a very important point, because it do gives them the freedom to leave their master and start their own business (or move to a better paying job) if the opportunity comes their way.

By the way, a salary is not only what you get at the end of the month as money, but it is the whole package what you get from the employer: non-monetary benefits, allowances, and respect and treatment from the employer. I'd take slavery of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) any given day over my current well paid job.

Lastly, you have taken few cases in hadiths of bad treatment of slaves as proof of norm in its society. It is like taking criminal murder records in a country to prove that murders are norm in a country, when in fact these records are insufficient on their own to be used as statistics to represent the overall picture.
Reply

kadafi
02-23-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
What is the logical fallacy here?
The fact that you introduced wishful thinking by denying the problems those ex-slaves faced after emancipation.

Sure. Because of racism, not because of the problems of freedom. This is not the mind set Islam was trying to tackle. As it happens the standard orthodox interpretation of Islam condemned racism. But then pre-Islam the Arabs were not notably racist anyway so Islam did little to change that.
Yes indeed racism and this was the mind that Islaam was also trying to tackle. The pre-islaamic Arabs considered them superior to all the other peoples of the world. This was expressed in their poems and this why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab, and no white is superior over black.

What is your source for this odd claim? You may notice that your source below directly contradicts it.
You did not get the point that I was portraying. In spite of the fact that their 'masters' disliked them, they forced themselves to return to them.

The source is Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom' by Charles H. Nichols.


But I doubt you will read it as your only source is restricted to distorted quotes provided by answering-islam


Again you are blurring racism and slavery. As the Muslims were not racists it does not apply. In fact as far as I can see this does not apply to this thread at all. Perhaps you might like to explain why you think it does?
Pre-Islaamic Arabs were racist. So if Islaam abolished slavery straight-away, it would have a profound effect on the terrible consequences. Why did you think that Islaam laid out the rules to treat them well. This is in order to integrate them into society and remove any superior feelings that the early Muslims possessed.

Which is an outrage - based on forcing people to work for their former masters during the post-Reconstruction period. Notice, of course, the basic assumption that former slaves did not normally work for their former masters and had to be forced to do so. Obviously most of them were perfectly capable of feeding themselves and would not have worked for their former owners unless forced to.
I am quite surprised that you acknowledge that whilst you wrote earlier that:
The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.
Or is this not a terrible consequence according to your criterion?

I will continue to quibble a little, but I am more or less in agreement with that. Notice that differs from the original claim that Islam does not allow the enslavement of any free person.
The mere fact that I was forced to add that part reveals your lack of acquaintance with the Islaamic teachings.


He did not instruct the soldiers to breathe. He did not instruct them to eat and drink. Why would he command the obvious? You will notice that he does not forbid the enslavement of the men either. Evidence of what? The enslavement of men who did not fight?
The speech is authentically related from Abu Bakr. He directed that speech to the Muslim army under the command of Usama ibn Zayd. You then you cited the a hadeeth that is completely unrelated to what I have stated. Not only that, but I already discussed the hadeeth in my previous post. How much of anti-Islamic literature have you been absorbing as opposed to reading authentic Islaamic literature?


Sure. Once they have been granted protection. Does this mean they are not enslaved though?
An enemy soldier can be ransomed, freed generously or be enslaved. I have stated the Islaamic Law on captives more 3 times and yet you continue to iterate whether a captive can be enslaved? This is what we call circular reasoning.

You also stated previously:
"What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them"

and instead of acknowledging the flaw in your preconceived claim, you assert another claim?

Oddly enough he does not say it was forbidden to enslave non-Muslims residing in the Dar al-Harb. Why is that do you think?
Do you even know what Dar al-Harb is and what the term refers to? Dar al-Harab is simply a term introduced to distinguish Muslims lands and non-Muslim lands. It sometimes is called Dar al-Kufr. If a non-Muslim does not wage war against Islaam, we cannot take the initiative to start a war. This is why Allaah (Exalted is He) said in the Glorious Qur'aan:
Allaah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allaah loveth those who are just.
I have you a link where it discusses the ethics of war and I see that you have not bothered to read it.

According to Ibn Ishaq, “Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd with some of the captive women of the Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” [Sira, p. 466 reproduced in Tabari Vol 8, p 39]
You have made another blunder by reading the works of Sham from answering-islam. Why am I not surprised? Furthermore, you quoted the English translation of Ibn Ishaq which you have never read but directly quoted from answering-islam website. My demand to you is to provide the arabic quote of that statement and I will verify and see if it agrees with the Islaamic teachings.

What You Should Know About Tabari



What is your evidence for these claims abotu the producers of alcohol?

If alcohol was such a big social problem, it must have been a major industry.

God did gradually abolish alcohol production and consumption. He could have gradually banned slavery too. But He did not in the Islamic world. He did, in the end, in the West.
The evidence is found in the practises of the days of Ignorance. Some of the sahabas were wine merchants and imported wine from Syria and Yemen.

You again compare slavery with alcohol. How can one compare these two while knowing that slavery has wider socio-economic repercussions?

I am perfectly content to note it referred to the bedouin. Of course if any sedentary trbie fought for forty years it is unlikely to have been a notably bloody affair. World War Two only lasted six.
Your initial claim:
I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so.

Evidence was provided which confuted your initial claim, so you backtracked that the ‘raids’ could not have been bloody.

If you like. Clearly they were not particularly dedicated or ruthless. They did not fight that way. They were refused an opportunity to fight like men usually did - man to man - by the Trench. Faced with bad weather, and a lack of planning for what to do if the Muslims refused to fight and hence a lack of food, they went home. As I said.
This is the third time that you seem to twist your primary claim which was:
You can see the difference is styles of fighting at things like the Battle of the Trench when the pagans just got bored and went home.

How does exhaust equal to boredom?

A segue into another claim. You will notice the two other Jewish tribes were exiled. So the choice was not slavery or freedom. There was mass murder and exile as well.
You did not answer the question:
Why did you think I cited banu Quraydha? It was the only tribe that was subjected to slavery and not to mention the fact that it was based on the Jewish Law since they wouldn't accept the Islaamic Law. Tell me, which other tribe was enslaved apart from Quraydha?
And this is what you said before I asked that question:
“Muslims did, as it happen, destroy entire tribes and sell all the women and children into slavery.”
Which other ‘tribes’ did they destroy and sell all the women and children into slavery apart from Banu Quraydha whose punishment was based on their Law (the Jewish Law)

Well we have seen that with the Banu Mustaliq already. In fact women very rarely fought but were very often enslaved.
This is the second that you have re-iterated this assertion and did not provide evidence. Banu Mustaliq who were planning to invade Madinah and kill the Prophet were not enslaved but imprisoned and later freed without ransom. Once they were freed, they entered the fold of Islaam.

Another tribe planning another attack against Muhammed. I will merely point out this is utterly irrelevant. They were not fighting, they were surprised. The Hadith clearly says so and you have not explained to me why that hadith is wrong. They were made captive - which as we have shown, means they were enslaved. As it happens they became Muslims and Muhammed had to ask for them to be freed. Which the Muslims did.
That is called a pre-emptive strike. The tribe were planning to invade Madinah and murder the Prophet.

Ibn Hishaam (May Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in his Seerah:
News reached the Prophet on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abu Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws.
What I also noticed is that you cling unto one hadeeth without looking at collaborating ahadeeth and the authentic seeras. This is also a known tactic used by some non-Muslims who go through the English-transled hadeeths and find a hadeeth. Without asking what the hadeeth means how it is understood, you claim to forward your twisted opinion on the hadeeth and say that it is the truth.

You also said that once they were imprisoned, they were enslaved. Now you tell me how imprisonment leads to automatically being enslaved. If the Islaamic teachings say that the a captive can be ransomed, freed without any ransom or enslaved, then how did you derive that if he is imprisoned, he is enslaved straight away. Doesn’t this reveal your stubbornness and rejection of the true Islaamic teachings.

And where did it say that they became Muslims while they were imprisoned. Please tell me so, where does say in any of the seeras of the Prophet or the ahadeeth that they became Muslims whilst being imprisoned.

First of all that is an absurd claim. It is simply not true that everything in any work by any Orientalist is true because it is printed. Second Leeder does not make that claim - he reports an Arab making that claim. Third Leeder does not even endorse it. Fourth, of course, it is irrelevant.
SS Leeder is a Christian Orientalist who recognized that there is no colour line in Islaam. He never reports that an Arab made that claim. That is an absurd lie and he ENDORSES the report he quoted.

This is what he says on commenting the report:
The reply of the negro shows the spirit of those early conquerors.

“There are a thousand blacks, as black as myself, amongst our companions. I and they would be ready each to meet and fight a hundred enemies together. We live only to fight for God, and to follow His will. We care naught for wealth, so long as we have wherewithal to stay our hunger and to clothe our bodies. This world is naught to us, the next world is all!”
And then he says:
The spirit of the Christian Cyrus prevails to this day. Quite recently I heard an English officer dismiss a Cairo cabman who had responded to the Turf Club call, saying indignantly to his friend and to the porter, “Why, he's a black beggar.” A very few years since a number of students of Edinburgh University refused the regular invitation of a Professor to tea on Sunday afternoon, if another student were included— merely because he was a Negro. It is pleasant to record that the Professor stood by his dusky friend, gaining for him, eventually, equality of social treatment. The fact should not be lost sight of that only one in eight of the people of the British Empire are white.

…. Islam knows no “colour line.” There is great reluctance— or racial incapacity almost— in Western missionary advocates to acknowledge class distinction as the almost insurmountable obstacle to Christian advance in vast regions where Islam is conquering. This is shown by the fact that Mr. Tisdall can even go so far as to claim for Christianity, as a superior merit, the sole propagation of the doctrine of the Brotherhood of Mankind, ignoring that it was under Islam that so much was done to break up the feudal system of Europe by admitting no privilege or caste in the regions which it conquered.
And he goes on about his admiration that Islaam achieved a true sense of brotherhood.

For your convience, here are the scanned pages which are available online:

http://timea.rice.edu/texts/LeeEgyp/images/LeeEg333.jpg

http://timea.rice.edu/texts/LeeEgyp/images/LeeEg335.jpg

http://timea.rice.edu/texts/LeeEgyp/images/LeeEg336.jpg

But it is interesting what SS Leeder states about Slavery in Islaam:
The historic fact is that Islam brought hope to the slaves, Mecca on his farewell pilgrimage. although its traducers sometimes speak as though it invented slavery. The first Koranic word on the subject is to reprove the rich for their treatment of slaves, and for the first time in history to enjoin such consideration and kindness as practically made the slave a member of his master's family, to be treated as one of his own children. “And your slaves! See that ye feed them with such food as ye eat yourselves, and clothe them with the stuff ye wear … for they are the servants of the Lord. … Know that all Moslems are brothers unto one another,” said Mohammed in his address in Abu Bekr, the Prophet's friend, believing the kindly rules in this matter established by Mohammed to be the will of heaven, spent nearly all his large fortune to purchase slaves, to free them from the religious persecution of their masters on account of their adherence to the teaching of Islam. Bilal, the faithful negro, who first sang the famous call to prayer, and who added the words to the early morning call, “Prayer is better than sleep,” was one of these slaves who found equality, and the path to freedom, in the new religion. One of the stated purposes of the alms, which are enjoined on every Moslem, is for the benefit of slaves who wish to buy their freedom and have not the means for so doing. To this day the true Moslem regards it as a great virtue, particularly pleasing to God, to grant freedom to his slaves—in this way he will mark some happy domestic celebration, or he will join this virtue to repentance for sin and preparation for death.



The friends with whom we were staying had not only freed their slaves long since, but Halima, their foster-nurse, had for many years enjoyed the happy life of a pensioner, and, above all, as I have said, had accompanied her master and mistress to Mecca as a friend. We heard of a sheikh who some time ago married his only daughter to a slave, refusing other offers, because the lad “was the best man he knew.” A recognition of equality like this is greater than the granting of freedom.
And these freed slaves have never found their origin an “invidious bar” to their attainment of the very highest posts to which their natural talents entitled them. Egypt itself has had a negro ruler “of deep black colour with a smooth shining skin,” who rose to be an excellent Governor, from the position of a slave. Kafur had shown himself to be equally great as a soldier and a statesman, and his dominion extended not only over Egypt, but Syria also. Bagdad also had a negro caliph.
Christian captives have often been treated in such a way that the teachings of Christ must have seemed to the slaves like a mockery of their hopeless misery. Sir William Stirling Maxwell, speaking of the condition of the galley slaves, says, “The poor wretches who tugged at the oar on board a Turkish ship of war lived a life neither more nor less miserable than the galley slaves under the sign of the Cross.” If we go to Arabia, where we are closer to the practice of the first teachings of Islam, we find, in Palgrave's words, that slavery to this day, as practised in that country, “has little but the name in common with the system hell-branded by those atrocities of the Western Hemisphere.”
Nothing of any relevance
If that is your excuse to avoid replying on my evidence, then so be it. It simply damages your credibility.

It has come to my notice you still failed to adequately reply to my evidence as opposed to your assertions. You did not provide evidence for your claim that Muslims invented the plantation system. Most of your posts are nothing but circular reasoning. And anyone who has followed the discussion would see these fallacies.

So next time, if you want my reply, at least cite any credible authorities. Your words here do not hold weight unless you substantiate it with evidence.
Reply

sargon
02-24-2006, 04:47 PM
I've been reading along and I think I have the same question as TruthSeeker, if there was a war that depleted the main functions of distributing resources or, for example in a small community that is seperate from the rest of the world until communications and systems are restored, and there were slaves from war, would Muslim families be entrusted with these people?

If so, could their masters really have sex with them and would the slave have a say in yes or no?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-24-2006, 08:29 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by sargon
I've been reading along and I think I have the same question as TruthSeeker
Then shouldn't you comment on the answer I already gave truth_seeker? :?

if there was a war that depleted the main functions of distributing resources or, for example in a small community that is seperate from the rest of the world until communications and systems are restored, and there were slaves from war, would Muslim families be entrusted with these people?
How is such a scenario possible when warfare can only be conducted by the Islamic state? If captives are taken by the Islamic state, they are normally imprisoned/detained until they are ransomed or released. Nevertheless, if your proposed scenario did occur, the Muslim government looks at what is the best option, and in modern times it is difficult to see slavery as a viable alternative.
If so, could their masters really have sex with them and would the slave have a say in yes or no?
In any case, slaves must be treated with kindness and this means that they are not forced to do difficult tasks or something they would hate/fear doing.

:w:
Reply

sargon
02-25-2006, 06:56 AM
:sl:
http://www.islamcan.com/cgi-bin/incr...46792874.shtml
DAJJAL APPEARS
Dajjal appears. His followers, the Yahudis, will number 70,000 and will wear expensive silk attire and carry double edged swords.
If when the dajjal appears and they're using swords, that should mean that the world probably has been destroyed partially by war or natural disasters, which would make it logical to assume that resources would be different, and that during these times slaves would have to be distributed like the old times.

So if the servent/slave agreed could you have sex with her? What if in your marriage contract your wife states that she doesn't want you to get married to any other girl, but then a holy war happens (I know this is out there but I have a crazy imagination :X ), could you still have intercourse with your servent/slave?

What if you have sex with the slave/servent girl because she agrees and then your wife wants a divorce, would the divorce be lawful?

What if the slave/servent girl wanted to be freed but you were poor and she fulfilled a vital role in housekeeping, doesn't that mean she can't be freed?

If you have sex with your slave/servent girl and she blatantly disagrees, is that grounds for manumission?

I appreciate all the hard work done and long posts to clear up this propaganda and questions, so far this is the best place I have to clear up misconceptions, so thanks a lot for all the hard work.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-25-2006, 04:21 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by sargon
If when the dajjal appears and they're using swords, that should mean that the world probably has been destroyed partially by war or natural disasters, which would make it logical to assume that resources would be different, and that during these times slaves would have to be distributed like the old times.
The source you quoted does mention double'edged swords, but I don't recall reading this in any authentic hadith. Do you know of any?

So if the servent/slave agreed could you have sex with her? What if in your marriage contract your wife states that she doesn't want you to get married to any other girl
About the marriage contract, it must be followed, and if the contract is violated, then the woman has the right to terminate the marriage.

but then a holy war happens (I know this is out there but I have a crazy imagination :X ), could you still have intercourse with your servent/slave?
As I said earlier, relations with slaves are permissable, but it is difficult to see this happening in the future.

What if you have sex with the slave/servent girl because she agrees and then your wife wants a divorce, would the divorce be lawful?
If it violates the marriage contract, or if she feels he has become unjust to her, yes.

What if the slave/servent girl wanted to be freed but you were poor and she fulfilled a vital role in housekeeping, doesn't that mean she can't be freed?
The encouragement is for everyone to do what is possible to free them.

If you have sex with your slave/servent girl and she blatantly disagrees, is that grounds for manumission?
The Prophet pbuh made it clear that whoever physically assaults their slave, the expiation is to free them.

:w:
Reply

HeiGou
03-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Yes indeed racism and this was the mind that Islaam was also trying to tackle. The pre-islaamic Arabs considered them superior to all the other peoples of the world. This was expressed in their poems and this why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab, and no white is superior over black.
First of all I am not going to debate the Farewell speech but it does exist in several copies - not all of which contain that bit about the non-Arab.

Second, belief that the "Arabs" are best is not necessarily racism. It depends on what basis you define "Arabs". As one of the greatest pre-Islamic Arab poets was half-African, I do not see signs of racism. What evidence do you have that they were before Islam?

You did not get the point that I was portraying. In spite of the fact that their 'masters' disliked them, they forced themselves to return to them.
No - the State forced them back to their masters despite their wish to be gone. They did not force themselves.

Pre-Islaamic Arabs were racist.
What is the evidence for this?

I am quite surprised that you acknowledge that whilst you wrote earlier that:
The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.
Or is this not a terrible consequence according to your criterion?
A terrible consequence but of the racism in the South, not of the freeing of the slaves. The problem was not emancipation.

The mere fact that I was forced to add that part reveals your lack of acquaintance with the Islaamic teachings.
Which is self evident and I have never denied.

An enemy soldier can be ransomed, freed generously or be enslaved. I have stated the Islaamic Law on captives more 3 times and yet you continue to iterate whether a captive can be enslaved? This is what we call circular reasoning.
How is it circular? We are all in agreement that a captive can be enslaved. There is some dispute about whether a peasant peacefully tending his or her fields can be enslaved and whether the women and children can be. But nothing else.

You also stated previously:
"What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them"

and instead of acknowledging the flaw in your preconceived claim, you assert another claim?
There is no flaw in my claim and obviously death is worse than slavery. It was not a last resort.

Do you even know what Dar al-Harb is and what the term refers to? Dar al-Harab is simply a term introduced to distinguish Muslims lands and non-Muslim lands. It sometimes is called Dar al-Kufr. If a non-Muslim does not wage war against Islaam, we cannot take the initiative to start a war.
None of which I have denied or even disputed.

You have made another blunder by reading the works of Sham from answering-islam. Why am I not surprised? Furthermore, you quoted the English translation of Ibn Ishaq which you have never read but directly quoted from answering-islam website. My demand to you is to provide the arabic quote of that statement and I will verify and see if it agrees with the Islaamic teachings.
Actually I did not get that from Answering Islam. I have read the English translation as it happens.

I am not going to look for an Arabic version. I have given you a quote and a citation. If you do not want to look it up that is fine by me. The only real question is whether is it in accordance with Islamic teachings and I do not see why you need an Arabic version to decide that. Either captives can be bought or sold or they cannot. What Tabari says or Ibn Ishaq said is neither here nor there to this discussion.

You again compare slavery with alcohol. How can one compare these two while knowing that slavery has wider socio-economic repercussions?
Because I do not see the wider social repercussions. Slavery was never that big on pre-Islamic Arabia. Nor was it concentrated in the economy but in the household.

Your initial claim:
I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so.

Evidence was provided which confuted your initial claim, so you backtracked that the ‘raids’ could not have been bloody.
I have not backtracked. I am insisting that I said what I said and not what you would have liked me to say. My words are clear. If you think otherwise please feel free to quote me directly.

This is the third time that you seem to twist your primary claim which was:
You can see the difference is styles of fighting at things like the Battle of the Trench when the pagans just got bored and went home.

How does exhaust equal to boredom?
The two are obviously related. What you will notice I did not say is what you said I said. I am not twisting my claims. I say what I say and no more.

You did not answer the question:[INDENT]Why did you think I cited banu Quraydha? It was the only tribe that was subjected to slavery and not to mention the fact that it was based on the Jewish Law since they wouldn't accept the Islaamic Law. Tell me, which other tribe was enslaved apart from Quraydha?
This is utterly irrelevant and I do not care to be drawn into nit picking. Did they have another option besides slavery? Yes they did. They had exile and they had mass murder for the entire tribe. They used both solutions on Jews. On that, I assume, we are in agreement. So. Fine. Slavery was not their only option.


This is the second that you have re-iterated this assertion and did not provide evidence. Banu Mustaliq who were planning to invade Madinah and kill the Prophet were not enslaved but imprisoned and later freed without ransom. Once they were freed, they entered the fold of Islaam.
Actually your source below shows clearly that they were enslaved. As you say "the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws." You do not manumit prisoners. You manumit slaves. They were freed without ransom - but because Muhammed married one of them.

That is called a pre-emptive strike. The tribe were planning to invade Madinah and murder the Prophet.

Ibn Hishaam (May Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in his Seerah:
News reached the Prophet on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abu Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws.
Sorry but where in that did it say they were going to kill Muhammed?

What I also noticed is that you cling unto one hadeeth without looking at collaborating ahadeeth and the authentic seeras. This is also a known tactic used by some non-Muslims who go through the English-transled hadeeths and find a hadeeth. Without asking what the hadeeth means how it is understood, you claim to forward your twisted opinion on the hadeeth and say that it is the truth.
I have repeatedly asked what some hadiths mean and I often get an answer. Of course I tend to use a limited number of hadiths - if I knew the answers I would not be asking the questions. I am, as I have pointed out many times, not an expert.

You also said that once they were imprisoned, they were enslaved. Now you tell me how imprisonment leads to automatically being enslaved. If the Islaamic teachings say that the a captive can be ransomed, freed without any ransom or enslaved, then how did you derive that if he is imprisoned, he is enslaved straight away. Doesn’t this reveal your stubbornness and rejection of the true Islaamic teachings.
No it reveals my trust in my own opinion and the fact that you have not made your case very clearly yet. your source clearly says they were manumitted. Not just released. What was Juwairiyah's dowry?

SS Leeder is a Christian Orientalist who recognized that there is no colour line in Islaam. He never reports that an Arab made that claim. That is an absurd lie and he ENDORSES the report he quoted.
Actually I went to a great deal of trouble to get hold of that book and look your reference up and that is precisely what he does.

He may make other comments elsewhere - I did not read the entire book. But that is not my problem. I checked what you provided.

It has come to my notice you still failed to adequately reply to my evidence as opposed to your assertions. You did not provide evidence for your claim that Muslims invented the plantation system. Most of your posts are nothing but circular reasoning. And anyone who has followed the discussion would see these fallacies.
I am working on it. You do not understand my posts if you think they are full of circular reasoning. And if you think you're wasting your time please don't feel obliged to discuss it any more. How did it come to your attention?

So next time, if you want my reply, at least cite any credible authorities. Your words here do not hold weight unless you substantiate it with evidence.
Your own sources agree with me on the issue of the enslavement of Juwairiyah's relatives.
Reply

kadafi
03-05-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
First of all I am not going to debate the Farewell speech but it does exist in several copies - not all of which contain that bit about the non-Arab.
That speech has been authentically related and is found in the Musnad. It is also repeated in the Glorious Qur'aan where Allaah (Exalted is He) says:
"O Mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you in the Sight of Allah is the believer who has the most piety. Verily Allaah is All Knowing, All-Aware"
Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
"Indeed Allaah has removed from you the blind loyalties of jahiliyyah and the pride for ancestry. Either be a pious believer or a miserable insolent. (All of) you are children of Adam, and Adam is from dust. Let some men cease to take pride in others, who are nothing but burning coal for the HellFire, it will be easier for Allaah to handle them than a dung beetle driving his nose into filth" Musnad, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi
The Prophet said on the authority of Ubayy Bin Ka'b:
"If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father's penis, and do not use a euphemism".
Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet said:
"You are not better than people with red or black skins unless you excel them in piety."
Thirmidhi
All these are reports denouncing the practises of the days of Ignorance where racial prejudice was prevalent
Second, belief that the "Arabs" are best is not necessarily racism. It depends on what basis you define "Arabs". As one of the greatest pre-Islamic Arab poets was half-African, I do not see signs of racism. What evidence do you have that they were before Islam?
Firstly, the primary source of any historical evidence from the days of Jahiliyyah is found the Islaamic literature. The arabs had immense pride in their descent and this is reported in many ahadeeth (refer above). The Quraysh looked down upon the lesser Arab tribes whilst Arabs in general looked down upon those of different race. Racism was amongst the social evils that Islaam tackled.

The following poem written by the chief of Tameem exhibits the sense of superiority:
We are the noble ones, and no other clan is our equal;
From our number kings [are raised], and among us temples erected.How many clans we have overpowered during [our] raiding! It is [only] a surfeit of might [such as ours] that finds imitators...
Donner, Conquests, p. 287 n. 46.
As for the half african poet, then they might have tolerated him due the lineage of his mother. Perhaps you could tell me who that half-african poet is.

No - the State forced them back to their masters despite their wish to be gone. They did not force themselves.
Let me requote the statement from Charles, in his book The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:
As a matter of fact many of the freed slaves were so desperately poor that they willingly worked for board and keep. Others were forced back into bondage. One ex-slave told a W. P. A. interviewer that he had been subjected to this form of peonage in Mississippi for forty years!
A terrible consequence but of the racism in the South, not of the freeing of the slaves. The problem was not emancipation.
The problem resulted in a fullscale abolition instead of enforcing rules to show them kindness and tackle the racism harbored in their minds. Many ex-slaves were killed and many groups sprung up after the emancipation (eg KKK). These are terrible consequences and contradict what you inititally said. Islaam attacked the mindset of the days of Ignorance and removed their ill-feelings against slaves by endorsing rules and encouraging emancipation. I have quoted several non-Muslims orientalists who concede that Islaam was the first creed to layout rules to eridicate slavery. So far, you have not responded to these quotations.

I also noticed that you haven't read the book that I suggested.

There is no flaw in my claim and obviously death is worse than slavery. It was not a last resort.
You primary claim was that the last resort is killing the captives which I have refuted in the light of the Islaamic teachings. You then twisted the statement into saying that death is worse than slavery? How is that pertinent to what we are we discussing? In fact, how can the kind treatment that captives received be worse than death?

SS Leeder:
"Christian captives have often been treated in such a way that the teachings of Christ must have seemed to the slaves like a mockery of their hopeless misery. Sir William Stirling Maxwell, speaking of the condition of the galley slaves, says, “The poor wretches who tugged at the oar on board a Turkish ship of war lived a life neither more nor less miserable than the galley slaves under the sign of the Cross.” If we go to Arabia, where we are closer to the practice of the first teachings of Islam, we find, in Palgrave's words, that slavery to this day, as practised in that country, “has little but the name in common with the system hell-branded by those atrocities of the Western Hemisphere."
Actually I did not get that from Answering Islam. I have read the English translation as it happens.

I am not going to look for an Arabic version. I have given you a quote and a citation. If you do not want to look it up that is fine by me. The only real question is whether is it in accordance with Islamic teachings and I do not see why you need an Arabic version to decide that. Either captives can be bought or sold or they cannot. What Tabari says or Ibn Ishaq said is neither here nor there to this discussion.
And I repeat, I need the arabic version of that statement. This is to prove that you looked it up yourself and not simply glanced at the distortions of the answering-islam team. This is a debate and for that, I will refer back to every claim you have asserted.

Because I do not see the wider social repercussions. Slavery was never that big on pre-Islamic Arabia. Nor was it concentrated in the economy but in the household.
No evidence and thus no comment.

This is utterly irrelevant and I do not care to be drawn into nit picking. Did they have another option besides slavery? Yes they did. They had exile and they had mass murder for the entire tribe. They used both solutions on Jews. On that, I assume, we are in agreement. So. Fine. Slavery was not their only option.
This is not irrevelant at all. You clearly said that Muslims destroyed entire tribes and sodl all the women and children into slavery. In plain english, you're claiming that Muslims enslaved every tribe that they have encountered and I asked for evidence which you have brushed aside with an evasive reply that it is irrelevant. You then made another claim that they commited mass-murder? What murder. The Jewish tribe AGREED to face the punishment based on THEIR LAW (The Torah) which is to execute the men. They did not had any objection and willingfully submitted to the punishment.
(Deuteronomy 20:12):
"When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."
Capital punishment = not murder.

I am still awaiting your evidence.

Actually your source below shows clearly that they were enslaved. As you say "the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws." You do not manumit prisoners. You manumit slaves. They were freed without ransom - but because Muhammed married one of them.
Then clearly, the word should have been freed (perhaps a mistranslation) since Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentions in Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya under the heading Juwayriyya bint al-Harith (may Allaah be pleased with her):
As soon as the marriage was announced, all the booty that had been taken from the Banu Mustaliq was returned, and all the captives were set free,
In addition, our mother Juwayriyya requested for a ransom which denotes that she was still a captive and not a slave.

Actually I went to a great deal of trouble to get hold of that book and look your reference up and that is precisely what he does.

He may make other comments elsewhere - I did not read the entire book. But that is not my problem. I checked what you provided.
You wrote:
Leeder does not make that claim - he reports an Arab making that claim. Third Leeder does not even endorse it.
On what page does he report the Arab making that claim? And on what page did he explictly say that he does not endorse it?

I have quoted statements from him that contradict what you asserted. He endorsed the report and he does not say that an Arab reported it.

Here are the pages where he reports it and endorses it:

http://timea.rice.edu/texts/LeeEgyp/images/LeeEg332.jpg

http://timea.rice.edu/texts/LeeEgyp/images/LeeEg333.jpg

Most of my points and citations have been left untouched.
Reply

HeiGou
03-05-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
That speech has been authentically related and is found in the Musnad. It is also repeated in the Glorious Qur'aan where Allaah (Exalted is He) says:
"O Mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you in the Sight of Allah is the believer who has the most piety. Verily Allaah is All Knowing, All-Aware"
Not a word on race here that I can see.

Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
"Indeed Allaah has removed from you the blind loyalties of jahiliyyah and the pride for ancestry. Either be a pious believer or a miserable insolent. (All of) you are children of Adam, and Adam is from dust. Let some men cease to take pride in others, who are nothing but burning coal for the HellFire, it will be easier for Allaah to handle them than a dung beetle driving his nose into filth" Musnad, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi
Not a hint of race here either from what I can see.

The Prophet said on the authority of Ubayy Bin Ka'b:
"If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father's penis, and do not use a euphemism".
Wow. I find that one hard to believe. Asserts his descent. Arabs were proud of their descent, but that does not make them racists. They counted their descent mainly in the male line after all. The son of someone was still the son of someone even if his mother was a slave.

Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet said:
"You are not better than people with red or black skins unless you excel them in piety."
I like that one.

All these are reports denouncing the practises of the days of Ignorance where racial prejudice was prevalent
And yet none of them contain an explicit claim about race. One of the great poets of Arabia before Islam was Antarah ibn-Shaddad al-Absi who was born a slave to an African slave mother. But that did not stop him nor is there any sign of racial discrimination. Pride in ancestry does not always mean racism.

Firstly, the primary source of any historical evidence from the days of Jahiliyyah is found the Islaamic literature. The arabs had immense pride in their descent and this is reported in many ahadeeth (refer above). The Quraysh looked down upon the lesser Arab tribes whilst Arabs in general looked down upon those of different race. Racism was amongst the social evils that Islaam tackled.
I am sure that the Quraysh looked down on other Arab tribes. Something that Islam does not seem to have done a lot to stop. And I am sure that the Arabs looked down on non-Arabs, but not on racial grounds. After all people could become Arabs by assimilation. This is one of those odd areas where the Abbasids seem to have returned to Rashidun practice as the Umayyads insisted that non-Arab converts become Arabs. Somewhere I have a claim by Anu Hanifa (I think) about "equality" in marriage - a non-Arab convert had to wait three generations before he would be allowed to marry an Arab woman.

The following poem written by the chief of Tameem exhibits the sense of superiority:
We are the noble ones, and no other clan is our equal;
From our number kings [are raised], and among us temples erected.How many clans we have overpowered during [our] raiding! It is [only] a surfeit of might [such as ours] that finds imitators...
Donner, Conquests, p. 287 n. 46.
Sure. Pride in clan, and nobility, but not in race.

As for the half african poet, then they might have tolerated him due the lineage of his mother. Perhaps you could tell me who that half-african poet is.
Because of his father actually. Antarah ibn-Shaddad al-Absi (525-615)

Let me requote the statement from Charles, in his book The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:
As a matter of fact many of the freed slaves were so desperately poor that they willingly worked for board and keep. Others were forced back into bondage. One ex-slave told a W. P. A. interviewer that he had been subjected to this form of peonage in Mississippi for forty years!
The problem resulted in a fullscale abolition instead of enforcing rules to show them kindness and tackle the racism harbored in their minds.
The problem resulted from racism alone. Abolition had nothing to do with it except it meant that some of them were forced to work for food and board instead of all of them doing it. If they had remained slaves but had been treated more kindly they still would have worked for food abd board alone and would have remained in bondage.

Many ex-slaves were killed and many groups sprung up after the emancipation (eg KKK). These are terrible consequences and contradict what you inititally said.
They do not contradict what I said earlier, and they simply continued the bad treatment under slavery. The problem here is racism not emanicpation.

Islaam attacked the mindset of the days of Ignorance and removed their ill-feelings against slaves by endorsing rules and encouraging emancipation. I have quoted several non-Muslims orientalists who concede that Islaam was the first creed to layout rules to eridicate slavery. So far, you have not responded to these quotations.
Because they are utterly irrelevant and I have in fact responded to the relevant bits.

You primary claim was that the last resort is killing the captives which I have refuted in the light of the Islaamic teachings. You then twisted the statement into saying that death is worse than slavery? How is that pertinent to what we are we discussing? In fact, how can the kind treatment that captives received be worse than death?
A minor passing comment of mine remains that the last resort was killing, not slavery. You seem to insist that slavery is worse than killing. It is not a big deal and if that is your view I am happy to accept it.

And I repeat, I need the arabic version of that statement. This is to prove that you looked it up yourself and not simply glanced at the distortions of the answering-islam team. This is a debate and for that, I will refer back to every claim you have asserted.
And I will repeat I am not going to bother looking for it. You have the full reference. You show no signs of looking anything up - it is a bit rich to complain about something I am not doing (cutting and pasting from polemical websites) when you are doing exactly that and no more - and this looks like an attempt to waste my time.

This is not irrevelant at all. You clearly said that Muslims destroyed entire tribes and sodl all the women and children into slavery. In plain english, you're claiming that Muslims enslaved every tribe that they have encountered
That is such a blatant distortion of what I said I cannot believe you said it. I said the Muslims destroyed entire tribes. They did. But that is not the same as saying they destroyed every tribe. The outrageously unfair nature of that claim is appalling.

and I asked for evidence which you have brushed aside with an evasive reply that it is irrelevant.
We have established what I want to establish - the Muslims did destroy at least one such tribe. Therefore, it is clear, I was right. The Muslims did destroy entire tribes.

You then made another claim that they commited mass-murder? What murder. The Jewish tribe AGREED to face the punishment based on THEIR LAW (The Torah) which is to execute the men.
Actually no. They resisted as long as they could and rather than face death from starvation of suicide, agreed to judgement by a man who had been their friend, but who had left the field after the Battle of the Trench determined to wreak his revenge on them. That man may have judged according to Jewish law, but they were not promised that and they did not ask for it. At least not as far as I can see in the texts - what is your evidence they did?

They did not had any objection and willingfully submitted to the punishment.
They had already submitted and so were in no position to resist.

Capital punishment = not murder.
Hmm, I think we could debate that a little more.

Then clearly, the word should have been freed (perhaps a mistranslation) since Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentions in Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya under the heading Juwayriyya bint al-Harith (may Allaah be pleased with her):
As soon as the marriage was announced, all the booty that had been taken from the Banu Mustaliq was returned, and all the captives were set free,
In addition, our mother Juwayriyya requested for a ransom which denotes that she was still a captive and not a slave.
But the word was not. It was manumitted. And there is no contradiction with that text. Slaves are captives - the Jews were captives in Egypt until Moses - and they were set free, not released. Before they were not free. After they were. Slaves can be ransomed. Why do you think they cannot?
Reply

kadafi
03-05-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Not a word on race here that I can see.


Not a hint of race here either from what I can see.

Wow. I find that one hard to believe. Asserts his descent. Arabs were proud of their descent, but that does not make them racists. They counted their descent mainly in the male line after all. The son of someone was still the son of someone even if his mother was a slave.

And I say to you that denial is not only a river in Egypt.


And yet none of them contain an explicit claim about race. One of the great poets of Arabia before Islam was Antarah ibn-Shaddad al-Absi who was born a slave to an African slave mother. But that did not stop him nor is there any sign of racial discrimination. Pride in ancestry does not always mean racism.
I am suprised that you have mentioned ibn Shaddad al-absi since he was initially disowned for his colour and lineage. He was only recongized by his father after a battle and before that, he was a slave, owned by his father. If Antarah, a half-african, whose father is the chief of his tribe, is your best example, then I rest my case.

Pride in ancestry denotes racism since the pre-Islaamic Arabs were proud of their lineage and descendant. They all agreed and boasted over the superiority of the arabs over the rest of the world.

That's why Sania Hamady said in Temperament and Character of the Arabs:
Thus the social organization of Islam rested on the equality and fraternity of all believers. The religious bond attempted to cancel distinctions of rank and pedigree; it did away theoretically with clannish feuds, contests for honor, and pride of race
A minor passing comment of mine remains that the last resort was killing, not slavery. You seem to insist that slavery is worse than killing. It is not a big deal and if that is your view I am happy to accept it.
And I say to you, provide evidence. My previous response to that claim:
If one wants to the read the ethics of warfare in Islaam, please refer to the article produced by islamtoday where they refer to the views of some of the salaf such as Ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him). The governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, brought a prisoner in irons to Ibn 'Umar and ordered him to come up and kill him. Ibn Umar refused, saying: "This is not the way we do things. Allaah says: 'either generosity or ransom' and He does not say anything about killing them."

Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali jurist, writes:

"The correct position on the matter is that if an enemy soldier is captured, it becomes unlawful to kill him." This is the official position of the Hanbali School of Law. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamimi claims that this was an ijma among the Sahabas.

It also discusses that POWs can be killed if they are guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.

For more information:

http://www.islamtoday.net/english//s...sub_cat_id=491
That is such a blatant distortion of what I said I cannot believe you said it. I said the Muslims destroyed entire tribes. They did. But that is not the same as saying they destroyed every tribe. The outrageously unfair nature of that claim is appalling.
No, what is appalling is how you retract your claims numerous times and claim to say something else. You made claim that Muslims destroyed entire tribes (note the plural) while the only tribe who received a capital punishment was Banu Qurayza. You cannot get out of this claim by claiming that I distorted your words. I still await the evidence.


Actually no. They resisted as long as they could and rather than face death from starvation of suicide, agreed to judgement by a man who had been their friend, but who had left the field after the Battle of the Trench determined to wreak his revenge on them. That man may have judged according to Jewish law, but they were not promised that and they did not ask for it. At least not as far as I can see in the texts - what is your evidence they did?
What texts? The answering-islam garbage? I doubt you ever read any Islaamic seeras that explitly speak about the punishment of Banu Qurayza. It is related in the seerah of the Prophet by Ibn Katheer that Banu Qurayza leaders met with Saaid ibn Muaz and agreed to SUBMIT to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.

My evidences have been disregarded and in reply, I get dozens of assertions with no factual evidence. One can observe in the last reply that I haven't rceived one shred of evidence.

I had to skim just to find claims where I have to provide "evidence" for something that you asserted.

I am just disappointed that this debate cannot be constructive because the opposite side continously ignores evidences and asserts claims. This will result into circular reasoning as I have noticed the traces already. Until I see some evidence for your assertions, you will not receive my reply.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Greetings,
I haven't receieved a response to my last post.
Reply

abdullahi
03-08-2006, 09:16 PM
:sl:
mash'allah, we have some heavyweights on this forum
great job refuting those baseless claims by helgou :brother: .
:w:
Reply

HeiGou
03-11-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I am suprised that you have mentioned ibn Shaddad al-absi since he was initially disowned for his colour and lineage. He was only recongized by his father after a battle and before that, he was a slave, owned by his father. If Antarah, a half-african, whose father is the chief of his tribe, is your best example, then I rest my case.
He was born a slave and it was only when he father recognised him as his son, that he was freed. On that we can agree. But I know of no evidence that was because of his color nor is there any sign that he was discriminated against after being freed - compare with the African-Americans after 1865.

Pride in ancestry denotes racism since the pre-Islaamic Arabs were proud of their lineage and descendant. They all agreed and boasted over the superiority of the arabs over the rest of the world.
As some of them still do. But it still does not imply racism as their lineage was traced down the male line. If that had a slave in it it would be something but I know of no evidence they cared if the Mother was a slave.

And I say to you, provide evidence. My previous response to that claim:[INDENT] If one wants to the read the ethics of warfare in Islaam, please refer to the article produced by islamtoday where they refer to the views of some of the salaf such as Ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him). The governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, brought a prisoner in irons to Ibn 'Umar and ordered him to come up and kill him. Ibn Umar refused, saying: "This is not the way we do things. Allaah says: 'either generosity or ransom' and He does not say anything about killing them."
And it also says

Allah has set down laws dealing with prisoners of war. He says in the Qur'ân: "If you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks. Then, if you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, so there will be a time for either generosity or ransom for them until cessation of the war." [Sûrah Muhammad: 4]
....
Scholars differ whether this second verse abrogates the ruling of the first. The strongest view is that it does not, since both convey essentially the same meaning. In the first verse, Allah says that there should be no prisoners of war until the Muslims have "thoroughly subdued the land." The second verse states that when they have "thoroughly subdued" the enemy so that they are full of fear and dread, then it is permissible to take prisoners. All this means is that prisoners of war should not be taken before or while subduing the land. There is no categorical prohibition in either of these verses to taking prisoners of war.

Permissible is not the same as complusory.

Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali jurist, writes:

"The correct position on the matter is that if an enemy soldier is captured, it becomes unlawful to kill him." This is the official position of the Hanbali School of Law. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamimi claims that this was an ijma among the Sahabas.

It also discusses that POWs can be killed if they are guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.
And yet you ignore the bit first which says

7. The Prophet (peace be upon him) killed a few people after their capture who posed a danger to the Muslims and who had been responsible for heinous deeds. One of these was Ibn Khatl who was killed during the conquest of Mecca. [al-Bukhârî (1846) and Muslim (1357)] The question then arises: Is it permissible for the Muslim government to kill prisoners of war? This is a matter of disagreement in Islamic Law.

So you have given me the Hanbali verdict, but that is just one of four schools. How about the other three?

No, what is appalling is how you retract your claims numerous times and claim to say something else. You made claim that Muslims destroyed entire tribes (note the plural) while the only tribe who received a capital punishment was Banu Qurayza. You cannot get out of this claim by claiming that I distorted your words. I still await the evidence.
You will wait a long time. We have established what I want - that the Muslims had other options besides slavery such as exile and death. You have also declined to answer my questions such as what was Juwairiyah's dowry?

What texts? The answering-islam garbage? I doubt you ever read any Islaamic seeras that explitly speak about the punishment of Banu Qurayza. It is related in the seerah of the Prophet by Ibn Katheer that Banu Qurayza leaders met with Saaid ibn Muaz and agreed to SUBMIT to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.
So now the Sira, and an unusual one at that, is acceptable when before it was not? Tell me on what basis you accept the historical sources?

The apostle besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.

Now Huyayy b. Akhtab had gone with B. Qurayza into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka`b b. Asad; and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them Ka`b b. Asad said to them: 'O Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer you three alternatives. Take which you please.' (i) We will follow this man and accept him as true, for by God it has become plain to you that he is a prophet who has been sent and that it is he that you find mentioned in your scripture, and then your lives, your property, your women and children will be saved. They said, 'We will never abandon the laws of the Torah and never change it for another.' He said, 'Then if you won't accept this suggestion (ii) let us kill our wives and children and send men with their swords drawn to Muhammad and his companions leaving no encumbrances behind us, until God decides between us and Muhammad. If we perish, we perish, and we shall not leave children behind us to cause us anxiety. If we conquer we can acquire other wives and children.' They said, 'Should we kill these poor creatures? What would be the good of life when they were dead?' He said, 'Then if you will not accept this suggestion (iii) tonight is the eve of the sabbath and it may well be that Muhammad and his companions will feel secure from us then, so come down, perhaps we can take Muhammad and his companions by surprise.' They said: 'Are we to profane our sabbath and do on the sabbath what those before us of whom you well know did and were turned into apes?' He answered, 'Not a single man among you from the day of your birth has ever passed a night resolved to do what he knows ought to be done.' [Sirat, pp. 461-462]
....
Then they sent to the apostle saying, 'Send us Abu Lubaba b. `Abdu'l-Mundhir, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf (for they were allies of al-Aus), that we may consult him.' So the apostle sent him to them, and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, 'Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement ?' He said, 'Yes,' and pointed with his hand to his throat, signifying slaughter. Abu Lubaba said, 'My feet had not moved from the spot before I knew that I had been false to God and His apostle.' Then he left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying, 'I will not leave this place until God forgives me for what I have done,' and he promised God that he would never go to B. Qurayza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed God and His apostle. [Sirat, p. 462]
....
In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]

Now on your advice I did get this from a certain well known site. Is any of that wrong or incorrectly quoted? If you think so I'll get out the original and quote it correctly.

I am just disappointed that this debate cannot be constructive because the opposite side continously ignores evidences and asserts claims. This will result into circular reasoning as I have noticed the traces already. Until I see some evidence for your assertions, you will not receive my reply.
If you do not feel like replying please feel free not to. But I will provide evidence for what I say and not what you say I say.
Reply

HeiGou
03-11-2006, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
You continually drag the discussion away from what Islamic law states to your imaginative ideas of what possibly might have been done by some Muslims, which is of course irrelevant. If a Muslim followed the laws of eating the same food and sharing the same clothes and calling them servant with respect, then of course there is no sense of superiority.
And I will continue to point out that superiority comes with the exercise of power, not the visible signs of it. And of course you put up a never-realised idealistic version of Islam and claim it is the measure of all things. Of course I am interested in the reality.

You attempted to indicate that a freed man was inferior to a free man, a claim which was soundly debunked. Both have equal rights and the only issues you raised about inheritance was concerning the Prophet's descendants, not slaves!
I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man. It has not been soundly debunked. And as a bonus I pointed out Islamic law also considers the descendents of the Prophet - therefore some forms of descent are important in Islam.

So you admit that Islam took slaves from their lowly position and elevated them to leaders of the Islamic empire?
Of course not. Islam does nothing political - it is not a motive force. I agree that in some Muslim societies (bad, non-Islamic one usually as it happens) some slaves were able to seize power. You think that is important for some reason. Why?

While it may not have been decisively abolished, Islam elevated slaves in society, making them rulers, leaders and scholars. All of this paved the way for the abolishment of slavery.
But did not have any noticeable influence on Britain, which did abolish slavery and forced the Muslim world too as well, and did not actually lead to the Muslims abolishing slavery either.

And by the way, cruised passed this today

Posted: November 10, 2003
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum believes Islam advocates slavery.

"Slavery is a part of Islam," says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA.

In a lecture recorded on tape by SIA, the sheik said, "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."

His religious books are used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and abroad, including the United States.

Al Fawzan – a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body – says Muslims who contend Islam is against slavery "are ignorant, not scholars."

"They are merely writers," he said, according to SIA. "Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Al-Fawzan's best-known textbook, "Al-Tawheed – Monotheism," says most Muslims are polytheists, and their blood and money are therefore free for the taking by "true Muslims."

SIA said although the Saudi government claims religious curriculum is being reformed, Al-Fawzan's books are still in wide use.

Al-Fawzan is a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia's main center of learning for the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

SIA noted Al-Fawzan, a leading opponent of curriculum reform, opposes elections and demonstrations as Western influences, is against Arab women marrying non- Arab Muslims and has issued a fatwa forbidding the watching of television.

Al-Fawzan has threatened to behead a Saudi writer and scholar, Sheik Hassan Al-Maliki, for his criticism of Wahhabism, according to SIA. Al-Maliki was fired from his position with the ministry of education after writing a 50- page paper criticizing Al-Fawzan's book "Al-Tawheed."

Please tell me he was mistranslated.

First of all, she was not a slave, so her case is irrelevant to the discussion.
I disagree. I am told that the Sunan Abu Dawud 19:2985-1989 discusses it. I will ask how does a girl end up with a name like Saffiyyah if she is not a slave? She is mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ."

Volume 2, Book 14, Number 68:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said to Abu Talha, "Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar." So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah's Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, "O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men." Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,' where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah's Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah's Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah's Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, "This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us." Then he looked at Medina and said, "O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures)."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 513:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to his marriage banquet and there was neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

So that was some other slave girl called Safiya perhaps?

Can we now all agree that Saffiyya was a slave?

And in passing,

Chapter 1: REGARDING PERMISSION TO MAKE A RAID, WITHOUT AN ULTIMATUM, UPON THE DISBELIEVERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVITED TO ACCEPT ISLAM
Book 019, Number 4292:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m". ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Book 019, Number 4293:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Aun and the name of Juwairiya bint al-Harith was mentioned beyond any doubt.

She was a non-muslim woman who converted to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her.
She was a Jew who was captured as it happens.

At any rate, it is recorded in Sirah An-Nabawiyah by Ibn Kathir, vol 3, p. 288 that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her after waiting after her period to determine that she was not pregnant. This is in accordance with the hadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Sexual intercourse is not allowed with a pregnant woman until she gives birth and with a woman who is not pregnant until she passes one menstrual period.” [Musnad Ahmad(3/28), Sunan Abu Dâwûd (2157), and Mustadrak al-Hâkim (2/212). Al-Hâkim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Muslim”.]
So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her period has passed? Which in Safiya's case was three days.
Reply

kadafi
03-13-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
He was born a slave and it was only when he father recognised him as his son, that he was freed. On that we can agree. But I know of no evidence that was because of his color nor is there any sign that he was discriminated against after being freed - compare with the African-Americans after 1865.
Then clearly you haven't read his biography (which is actually very brief). Graham W. Irwin briefly discusses him in his book 'Africans Abroad: A Documentary History of the Black Diaspora in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean during the Age of Slavery'.

He mentions that ibn Shaddad was owned by his father and was initially refused to be freed because of his colour [and rank]. He mentions that ibn Shaddad after engaging into many battles; was still denied freedom. He also asked for the hand of his niece but was denied because of his colour and rank. He was freed after he refused to fight for them and is reported to have said:


"The slave is not for fighting; he is only needed to milk the camels and tie up their udders."
Bear also in mind that Pre-islaamic Arabs boasted about their lineage from the father's side and consequently, the lineage of the mother was usually neglected. If Ibn Shaddad had an African father, it would have been a different story. But then again, can you provide an example of an African slave who reached the same rank as the pre-Islaamic Arabs?

I do not see any justification why you compared the present topic to the African ex-slaves after 1865? What we are discussing is the Pre-Islaamic racism. Let me re-quote all the evidence(s) that suggest the racism prevalent in the days of Ignorance.

Sania Hamady said in Temperament and Character of the Arabs:
Thus the social organization of Islaam rested on the equality and fraternity of all believers. The religious bond attempted to cancel distinctions of rank and pedigree; it did away theoretically with clannish feuds, contests for honour, and pride of race
Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
"Indeed Allaah has removed from you the blind loyalties of jahiliyyah and the pride for ancestry. Either be a pious believer or a miserable insolent. (All of) you are children of Adaam, and Adaam is from dust. Let some men cease to take pride in others, who are nothing but burning coal for the HellFire, it will be easier for Allaah to handle them than a dung beetle driving his nose into filth" Musnad, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi
The Prophet said on the authority of Ubayy Bin Ka'b:
"If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islaamic people, tell him to bite his father's penis, and do not use a euphemism".
Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet said:
"You are not better than people with red or black skins unless you excel them in piety."
Thirmidhi
As some of them still do. But it still does not imply racism as their lineage was traced down the male line. If that had a slave in it it would be something but I know of no evidence they cared if the Mother was a slave.
How does it not imply racism? All the evidence that I posted suggested that Pre-Islaamic Arabs possessed exessive pride in their lineage which automatically denotes to racism. A Pre-Islaamic half-Arab who had a African father would never boast about the lineage of his father as he had nothing to boast about it.

This is why Sania Hamady said in Temperament and Character of the Arabs:
Thus the social organization of Islaam rested on the equality and fraternity of all believers. The religious bond attempted to cancel distinctions of rank and pedigree; it did away theoretically with clannish feuds, contests for honor, and pride of race
And the countless reports from the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) denoucing the practices of the Jahiliyyah.
The only example that you have provided proved to be in favour of the Pre-Islaamic Racism.

Permissible is not the same as complusory.
It is getting quite tiredsome that you shift your argument from one point to another. First you assert that captives can be killed after captivitating and now you have interjected a complete different scenario that has nothing to do with those who are captivated.

Why don't you to stick the argument and that is whether captives can be killed after imprisoned.

And yet you ignore the bit first which says
I did not ignore that since the ikhtilaaf between killing some of the captives stems from the crimes of the captive. If Hitler was caught, would you argue that he either be ransomed or freed without a ransom? In Islaam, the Muslim government cannot hold the captives for an extreme long time. They have to release them at some point. Compare this to your argument where captives should be killed regardless of their crimes. This is also endorsed by the last part of the statement you quoted (which you ommited):
What is certain, however, is that a prisoner of war cannot be killed for nothing. The prisoner must be guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.
The article states:
Many of the scholars of the past loathed the idea of killing prisoners of war. Throughout all of the wars and battles that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) waged, he killed very few prisoners of war. These were all among the worst criminals among the enemy who had previously engaged in atrocities against the Muslims. Many of them would today be called war criminals.
Notice the word few.

In another article, it is written:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransom from some prisoners of Badr. That ransom was for them to teach the children of the Muslims how to read and write.

Killing the prisoner is not an option at all. It was not mentioned in the verse.

On some occasions, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) executed some prisoners. However, they were not killed because they were prisoners of war, but because of heinous crimes that they had committed. They were executed for what would now be referred to as war crimes.
Ibn Rushd says in his book Bidayat Al-Mujtahid,


A number of scholars say that it is not permissible to kill a captive.
Ibn Katheer mentions in his tafseer that:

Scholars say that the Muslim ruler’s only choice is to set captives free, either as an act of grace or in return for ransom, but it is prohibited to kill a captive.
Al-Alousi says


The apparent meaning of the Qur’aanic verse is that it is forbidden to kill a person after taking him prisoner.
You will wait a long time. We have established what I want - that the Muslims had other options besides slavery such as exile and death. You have also declined to answer my questions such as what was Juwairiyah's dowry?
I guess the first sententence reveals that you cannot provide the evidence for your claim that Muslims 'killed' tribes [plural]. Since you claim to have studied the Banu Mustaliq scenario, then why on earth do you ask me what the dowry was. Is this another blunder that demonstrates that you haven't read any of the seeras.

Now on your advice I did get this from a certain well known site. Is any of that wrong or incorrectly quoted? If you think so I'll get out the original and quote it correctly.
And that certain well known site is the answering-islam site. I have already stated in the Assassination thread that the Seerat you quoted is the translation done by the Islamophobe Guilaume, the mere fact that you quoted them already proves your bigoted stance towards Islaam by taking information from anti-Islaamic websites who distort statements. Ibn Ishaq's work seerat of the Prophet is only known to us in the recension of Ibn Hishaam. So if you going to quote him, then quote the original [full] words instead of some biased translation of a Islamophobe.



I will list some of the authentic seeras as a starting point for you to learn about the Islaamic history in general. Ibn Katheer's Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah, the seerah compiled by Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) which only includes accounts with strong sanad and there is also a seerah titled Raheeq al-Maktoum by al-Mubarakpuri.


Lastly, I have noticed you have not responded to many of my points so I will attempt to re-list them.

My point regarding SS Leeder, where he reports the story and endorses it.
What he states about Slavery in Islaam.
The historic fact is that Islam brought hope to the slaves, Mecca on his farewell pilgrimage. although its traducers sometimes speak as though it invented slavery. The first Koranic word on the subject is to reprove the rich for their treatment of slaves, and for the first time in history to enjoin such consideration and kindness as practically made the slave a member of his master's family, to be treated as one of his own children. “And your slaves! See that ye feed them with such food as ye eat yourselves, and clothe them with the stuff ye wear … for they are the servants of the Lord. … Know that all Moslems are brothers unto one another,” said Mohammed in his address in Abu Bekr, the Prophet's friend, believing the kindly rules in this matter established by Mohammed to be the will of heaven, spent nearly all his large fortune to purchase slaves, to free them from the religious persecution of their masters on account of their adherence to the teaching of Islam. Bilal, the faithful negro, who first sang the famous call to prayer, and who added the words to the early morning call, “Prayer is better than sleep,” was one of these slaves who found equality, and the path to freedom, in the new religion. One of the stated purposes of the alms, which are enjoined on every Moslem, is for the benefit of slaves who wish to buy their freedom and have not the means for so doing. To this day the true Moslem regards it as a great virtue, particularly pleasing to God, to grant freedom to his slaves—in this way he will mark some happy domestic celebration, or he will join this virtue to repentance for sin and preparation for death.
The friends with whom we were staying had not only freed their slaves long since, but Halima, their foster-nurse, had for many years enjoyed the happy life of a pensioner, and, above all, as I have said, had accompanied her master and mistress to Mecca as a friend. We heard of a sheikh who some time ago married his only daughter to a slave, refusing other offers, because the lad “was the best man he knew.” A recognition of equality like this is greater than the granting of freedom.

And these freed slaves have never found their origin an “invidious bar” to their attainment of the very highest posts to which their natural talents entitled them. Egypt itself has had a negro ruler “of deep black colour with a smooth shining skin,” who rose to be an excellent Governor, from the position of a slave. Kafur had shown himself to be equally great as a soldier and a statesman, and his dominion extended not only over Egypt, but Syria also. Bagdad also had a negro caliph.

Christian captives have often been treated in such a way that the teachings of Christ must have seemed to the slaves like a mockery of their hopeless misery. Sir William Stirling Maxwell, speaking of the condition of the galley slaves, says, “The poor wretches who tugged at the oar on board a Turkish ship of war lived a life neither more nor less miserable than the galley slaves under the sign of the Cross.” If we go to Arabia, where we are closer to the practice of the first teachings of Islam, we find, in Palgrave's words, that slavery to this day, as practised in that country, "has little but the name in common with the system hell-branded by those atrocities of the Western Hemisphere."
The statements of some of the non-Muslims who acknowledged that Islaam laid out rules to eliminate slavery:


Annemarie Schimmel:
...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.
Marjorie Kelly writes in Islam: The Religious and Political Life of a World Community:
Because of socioeconomic considerations, however, slavery was not abolished.
Kenneth W. Morgan writes in Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims
Slavery was customary at the time that Islam was revealed, but Islaam prepared the grounds for its elimination. It encourages the emancipation of slaves by giving them the possibility of purchasing their freedom, it urges that part of zakat be given to slaves to help them free themselves, and it offers the possibility of atonement for certain sins, such as having sexual intercourse during fasting days, by releasing slaves.
The pre-Islaamic raids where the killing was higlu prized:

Tribesmen took immense pride in their ability to defend themselves and their dependants, and they regularly boasted of their strength in poetry, giving pleasure to themselves and warning potential predators at the same time. The ability to get the better of others (not of one's own tribe) by taking their camels, abducting their women, killing their men, or slitting the noses of their defenceless slaves was also highly prized.
Your assertion that Muslim developed the first plantation:

Your assertion that a freed slave cannot be equal to a free man.

Your assertion that there were no repercussions after the abolition of slavery in Americas.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
And of course you put up a never-realised idealistic version of Islam and claim it is the measure of all things. Of course I am interested in the reality.
This is the reality. You keep missing the point. We are discussing ISLAM and ISLAMIC LAW, not the misconduct of some Muslims.

I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man.
Where have you established that? You mentioned the case of walaa, which means that the former master will inherit from the freed slave if there are no heirs or if there is a portion of wealth left after the heirs have taken theirs. This is in no way 'fewer rights'. Can an individual who has been born to a large family complain that he has fewer rights because he has more heirs?! If the only example you can bring is walaa, then clearly you have been soundly debunked on your claim of fewer rights.

And as a bonus I pointed out Islamic law also considers the descendents of the Prophet - therefore some forms of descent are important in Islam.
Which in no way contradicts my point that they are not superior.

Of course not. Islam does nothing political - it is not a motive force. I agree that in some Muslim societies (bad, non-Islamic one usually as it happens) some slaves were able to seize power.
First of all, these were not 'bad' 'non-islamic' societies. This was in the time period immediately following the companions when the Muslims were the most righteous and the scholars of Islam were the leaders. The fact that by this time the slaves had become leaders in the society shows how Islam worked as a dynamic force to elevate the status of the slaves.

But did not have any noticeable influence on Britain, which did abolish slavery and forced the Muslim world too as well, and did not actually lead to the Muslims abolishing slavery either.
Had it not been for Islam, slavery would have become deeper and the oppression of slaves would have continued without restriction. Twice I have quoted to you a statement from Edward Blyden, which you have twice ignored:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am sorry I missed any mention by any history that would suggest that anything the Muslims did weakened the institution of slavery or had the slightest impact on Britain. May I ask for that cite again?
Edward Blyden, on of the most important Pan-Africanist thinkers of the 19th century, points out that Islam is what saved much of Africa from slavery:
The introduction of Islam into Central and West Africa has been the most important, if not the sole, preservative against the desolations of the slave trade. Islam furnished a protection to the tribes who embraced it by effectively binding them together in one strong fraternity and enabling them by their united efforts to baffle the attempts of powerful pagan slave hunters. (Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, p. 215)
And by the way, cruised passed this today. Please tell me he was mistranslated.
I was already familiar with these articles on Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan. Mistranslated? No, misquoted actually. There is a distinct difference between 'advocating' slavery and saying that it is permissible in Islam. It is quite obvious that he has been misquoted if the article attributes to him views that most Muslims are polytheists and similar kharaji views when Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan is known to be a staunch opponent of such views!

As for the 'wahhabi' views, I can quote for you statements of Saudi scholars like those on the permanent committee (which Saleh Al-Fawzan himself is part of) or the likes of Shaykh Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza'iry, who was one of the leading scholars in Saudi Arabia in our time, and he says almost word for one the same points that I am making. Islam elevated the status of slaves, prevented oppression, and encouraged the freeing of slaves, even mandating it in certain situations. I never said that Islam forbids or prohibits slavery. What Islam did was the best thing that could be done.

Lastly, another important point that one should note is that even if there was something that one scholar says that contradicts what we have mentioned here, it still does not refute it in anyway. Because at the end of the day, one scholar is just a human being, and they are not our source - our source is the Qur'an and the Sunnah. And a statement of a single scholar from an ocean of scholars is only accepted or rejected on the basis of the Qur'an and Sunnah.


Now the issue of Safiyyah, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad saws. First of all, I am amazed at how you seem to miss simple english phrases, such as in this hadith you quoted:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to his marriage banquet and there was neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "IF the Prophet makes her observe the veil, THEN she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and IF he does NOT make her observe the veil, THEN she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and MADE HER OBSERVE THE VEIL
If one understands english they will realize very quickly that this hadith proves that she WAS NOT a slave girl because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh made her wear the veil, indicating he had married her as his wife. The same thing is true for all the other hadith you have quoted - they all show that she was among the captives i.e. she could have been taken as a slave girl but SHE WAS NOT taken as a slave girl, INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh manumitted her and MARRIED HER. So to bring her up in the discussion on slave girls is irrelevant because she was the wife of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, not his slave.

And in passing,
Nothing of any relevance to our discussion.

So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her [menstrual] period has passed?
The two things are identical. Safiyyah did not pass her entire menstrual period in three days. That was when her period ended so the Prophet pbuh married her. He did not keep her as a slave. If a non-muslim woman converts to Islam, as is the case with Safiyyah, one may marry her at the end of her period.
Reply

HeiGou
03-16-2006, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
And of course you put up a never-realised idealistic version of Islam and claim it is the measure of all things. Of course I am interested in the reality.
This is the reality. You keep missing the point. We are discussing ISLAM and ISLAMIC LAW, not the misconduct of some Muslims.
When you talk about how Islam paved the way for abolition we are clearly not talking about your idealised version of Islamic law, but the conduct of some Muslims. When you talk about which Caliph had a slave mother, again, we are talking about the reality, not the Islamic theory.

You move between the two and so it is hard to keep up. I would ask for more patience.

I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man.
Where have you established that? You mentioned the case of walaa, which means that the former master will inherit from the freed slave if there are no heirs or if there is a portion of wealth left after the heirs have taken theirs. This is in no way 'fewer rights'. Can an individual who has been born to a large family complain that he has fewer rights because he has more heirs?! If the only example you can bring is walaa, then clearly you have been soundly debunked on your claim of fewer rights.
No he is unlikely to complain about heirs because that does not affect him. Now a son born into a large family might complain. But he has the same rights everyone else in his family, or at least all the boys, does. What a freed slave has is fewer rights over how to dispose of his estate - Islamic law lays down another condition he must follow - and lesser rights in that he is also a malwa by law and not a free man. This has not been debunked. You deny it means what it means, but it still means what I said.

And as a bonus I pointed out Islamic law also considers the descendents of the Prophet - therefore some forms of descent are important in Islam.
Which in no way contradicts my point that they are not superior.
I think it does. If you do not I am happy to leave it there.

Of course not. Islam does nothing political - it is not a motive force. I agree that in some Muslim societies (bad, non-Islamic one usually as it happens) some slaves were able to seize power.
First of all, these were not 'bad' 'non-islamic' societies. This was in the time period immediately following the companions when the Muslims were the most righteous and the scholars of Islam were the leaders. The fact that by this time the slaves had become leaders in the society shows how Islam worked as a dynamic force to elevate the status of the slaves.
Except the slaves did not seize power then. Some of them and more of their descendents just rose because of their abilities. The Mamluks seized power. The Army of the late Abbasids did in all but name.

This too seems to have little relevance and I am happy to let it go unless you have some point you still wish to make?

But did not have any noticeable influence on Britain, which did abolish slavery and forced the Muslim world too as well, and did not actually lead to the Muslims abolishing slavery either.
Had it not been for Islam, slavery would have become deeper and the oppression of slaves would have continued without restriction. Twice I have quoted to you a statement from Edward Blyden, which you have twice ignored:
The first sentence is a guess on your part. There is no way of knowing. And the historical record suggests otherwise - Muslim societies were the last to abolish slavery, not the first.

I am ignoring Blyden yet again because he is of course utterly irrelevant. He does not make the claim you are making. He is not an Islamic scholar. I am doubtful that you have read the book even.

I was already familiar with these articles on Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan. Mistranslated? No, misquoted actually. There is a distinct difference between 'advocating' slavery and saying that it is permissible in Islam. It is quite obvious that he has been misquoted if the article attributes to him views that most Muslims are polytheists and similar kharaji views when Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan is known to be a staunch opponent of such views!
Actually I fail to see a distinction between the two. If slavery is permissible in Islam then all good Muslims must want to see it come back. How can any Muslim make illegal what God has made licit? Isn't that innovation?

I am not interested in his takfir-ing. I do not have expertise in this area.

Now the issue of Safiyyah, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad saws. First of all, I am amazed at how you seem to miss simple english phrases, such as in this hadith you quoted:
Quote:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to his marriage banquet and there was neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "IF the Prophet makes her observe the veil, THEN she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and IF he does NOT make her observe the veil, THEN she will be his lady slave."

So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and MADE HER OBSERVE THE VEIL
If one understands english they will realize very quickly that this hadith proves that she WAS NOT a slave girl because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh made her wear the veil, indicating he had married her as his wife.
I have tried to edit this to make it easier to follow. Let me know if I have not done you justice.

Actually I disagree with that totally. As you have pointed out many many times, Muhammed cursed anyone who made a free person a slave. There was only one way that Safiyyah could have become a slave and that was if she was captured. So she was a slave - when she belonged to someone else - she came to Muhammed as a slave, but she agreed to convert and he then married her. That is the only interpretation consistent with the quotation I have provided and your claims about Islamic law. How could she have been a slave if she was free? Why would they even think of it? And yet they clearly considered the option of her being a slave.

The same thing is true for all the other hadith you have quoted - they all show that she was among the captives i.e. she could have been taken as a slave girl but SHE WAS NOT taken as a slave girl, INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh manumitted her and MARRIED HER. So to bring her up in the discussion on slave girls is irrelevant because she was the wife of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, not his slave.
I think they all show that she was a slave, but she converted and then Muhammed married her. In fact they explicitly and clearly say so. Tell me how you can interpret that in any other way?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Are you saying that Bukhari is wrong here to say this in this order?

And incidentally, how does she get a name like Safiya if she was not a slave?

So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her [menstrual] period has passed?
The two things are identical. Safiyyah did not pass her entire menstrual period in three days. That was when her period ended so the Prophet pbuh married her. He did not keep her as a slave. If a non-muslim woman converts to Islam, as is the case with Safiyyah, one may marry her at the end of her period.
Well originally the claim was they had to wait a month - the menstrual period. Of course this may not equal one whole menstrual cycle. Safiya did not pass her entire cycle or an entire month, but just three days when, I assume, her period was over. So the two are not identical. I have just not been clear.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-16-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
When you talk about how Islam paved the way for abolition we are clearly not talking about your idealised version of Islamic law, but the conduct of some Muslims. When you talk about which Caliph had a slave mother, again, we are talking about the reality, not the Islamic theory.
When the practices contradict Islamic teachings, that they are not relevant. When they are the application of Islamic teachings then they are.

Now a son born into a large family might complain.
Such a notion is ridiculous; having a large family does not mean one has less rights. Likewise, having an additional heir who gets a portion of inheritance after all other heirs have taken their share, is not a lesser right.
What a freed slave has is fewer rights over how to dispose of his estate
No he does not, because the former master takes his share only from what remains after other heirs have taken their share. If someone has a lot of heirs, does that mean that they have less rights because Islamic law lays down more conditions for them to follow? No, of course not.

Except the slaves did not seize power then. Some of them and more of their descendents just rose because of their abilities.
As I said before, this was the period when the Islamic state was at its peak in implementing Islamic law and we find slaves had taken leadership positions everywhere - something that was only brought about by Islam.

I am ignoring Blyden yet again because he is of course utterly irrelevant.
No, it was a direct response to your request for evidence.

Actually I fail to see a distinction between the two. If slavery is permissible in Islam then all good Muslims must want to see it come back.
Living in a cave without electricity is permissible - does that mean all good Muslims want a return to that era?

I have tried to edit this to make it easier to follow. Let me know if I have not done you justice.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There was only one way that Safiyyah could have become a slave and that was if she was captured.
I agree. She was a war captive, and the narrations point out that she could have been taken as a slave girl by some, but INSTEAD Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her and did NOT maker her his slave girl.
So she was a slave - when she belonged to someone else - she came to Muhammed as a slave, but she agreed to convert and he then married her.
No she was not a slave - they were going to take her as a slave, but INSTEAD the Prophet pbuh married her i.e. she became his wife. This was also explicitly mentioned in the narration I highlighted for you in the previous post, but you ignored my comments.
And yet they clearly considered the option of her being a slave.
Yes, they did consider the option of taking her as a slave girl, but INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her, i.e. she became his wife.

I think they all show that she was a slave, but she converted and then Muhammed married her.
No, they show that she was a captive who could have been taken as a slave girl but INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her.

So the hadith from Bukhari is correct. And Safiyyah's case is irrelevant here because the Prophet pbuh did not keep her as a slave girl, so the rulings of slave girls do not apply to her.

Regards
Reply

kadafi
03-17-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

As for the 'wahhabi' views, I can quote for you statements of Saudi scholars like those on the permanent committee (which Saleh Al-Fawzan himself is part of) or the likes of Shaykh Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza'iry, who was one of the leading scholars in Saudi Arabia in our time, and he says almost word for one the same points that I am making. Islam elevated the status of slaves, prevented oppression, and encouraged the freeing of slaves, even mandating it in certain situations. I never said that Islam forbids or prohibits slavery. What Islam did was the best thing that could be done.
:sl:

Exactly

And this is the fatwaa that they issued:

The Lajna ad-Daa'imah (Permanent Committee for Islamic Research) issued a Fatwaa wherein they were asked about the issue of slavery and why does not Islaam outlaw slavery, from their reply:
"By this it is known that the basis of slavery is only through prisoners-of-war or captives obtained when fighting Jihad against the disbelievers. Its purpose is to reform those enslaved by removing them from an evil environment and allowing them to live in a Muslim society, who will guide them to the path of goodness, save them from the clutches of evil, purify them from the filth of disbelief and misguidance, and
make them deserving of a life of freedom in which they enjoy security and peace."
They furthered stated:

"And if there are no lawful Islamic wars, then it is not permissible to establish or institute slavery."
The fatwaa team headed by Shaykh Abdullah Al-Fakeeh and Shaykh Hassan Al-Ahameed (from islamweb.net) were also asked similiar question to which they replied:

After this introduction we dare saying that Islam is the freer of slaves and the equitable with human beings. We are very proud of this. So, if the world now gets together and forbids slavery, Islam will welcome such an initiative as it fits into its aims and objectives. It is lawful for the Muslim leader to sign a convention forbidding slavery.

But this does not mean that slavery was abrogated definitely and has become legally inexistent. If the world returns back to enslaving prisoners of war, Muslims will treat their enemies equally.
Full version
And in other fatwaa:
From this factual information it should be clear that slavery was to be eliminated in Islam. It is our view that when the Islaamic Shariah is practiced faithfully slavery will eventually be eliminated; we might add, so will all other acts of man's inhumanity to man.
Full version
:w:
Reply

nimrod
05-07-2006, 04:58 PM
Something that has left me confused:

I was under the impression that corpal punishment was allowed under Islam.

I was under the impression that corpal punishment was allowed in the home, under Islam.

I was under the impression that corpal punishment was allowed in the school system, under Islam.

I was under the impression that corpal punishment was allowed to be applied to slaves as well.

If you owned a slave family and you spanked one of the slave children or teenager, was this considered "beating"?

I confess to much ignorance concerning Islam, so I am just asking about what has me confused.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-07-2006, 07:43 PM
Hi Nimrod,
Regarding corporal punishment - Islam does not allow anyone to be abused. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said there is to be no harming nor reciprocating of harm. So beating or abusing anyone is totally forbidden in Islam. As for raising children, sometimes it is useful to discipline them physically but never with beating or causing them harm. Islam places emphasis on teaching like the Prophet did - with mercy, gentleness and good communication.

From your other post:
Originally Posted by nimrod
One of your replies cited this:

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

Why was there a need to end such practices? What harm was that type of slavery doing that it needed to be ended?
Before Islam came, slaves were treated very poorly and abused. Islam changed all that and elevated the status of slaves so that no harm was done to anyone. As you have correctly observed, there was no injustices carried out under Islamic law; Islamic law encouraged the freeing of slaves, often mandating it in many cases which brought about an end to all injustices. Whenever Islamic law was followed, there was no injustice and abuse, and the practice of slavery gradually dissolved.
This was cited; "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".

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

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

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

Can you help me understand this, a little better please?
The child 'belongs' to the master in the sense that it is their child, not their slave.
Another thing that has left me confused is the argument that if all the slaves had been freed there would have been no jobs or work for them.

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

Free the slaves today and then you have 15 jobs ready for the 15 freed slaves tomorrow don’t you?
I don't know how much of the thread you have read, and I can appreciate that it is very long but you migth want to take a look at some of the previous posts which answer these questions. Basically, when you examine the situation you realize that if the slaves were freed they would need economic autonomy. Would they live on the streets until they were able to set up their own business? Ultimately you realize that the best solution for them was to stay with the jobs they had (as you suggested) and the homes they had - but to simply have their rights realized and to be free of injustice and abuse. This is what Islam did.

Regards
Reply

nimrod
05-08-2006, 05:28 AM
Ansar Al-‘Adl, thanks for the reply, it clears up some of my confusion.

From some of the posts on this thread it was sounding as though slaves were never to be hit and if they were then they were to be set free.

I knew that just wouldn’t make any sense. Islam allows for punishment for a free man to consist of 40 lashes, it just didn’t make sense that Islam wouldn’t allow a slave owner to punish a slave in the same manner.

I can see what you are saying about not beating or abusing anyone though.
I would assume that giving lashes as punishment when the slave had done nothing wrong would be abusive, but if they had committed some offense then it isn’t abuse, it is punishment.

Your next answer still has me confused a bit.

If I understood the reasoning correctly, Islam ended slavery because of the abuses some people suffered under lesser slave systems.
Yet the system of slavery as you describe it under Islam seems about as just and fair as any slave system could get.

I was under the impression that one of the reasons you had given for slavery’s gradual ending was that the command to end it quickly would have been strongly resisted by slave owners.

What has left me confused is that with a slave system in place like the one you describe, then why the need for ending it and not just issuing commands to reform the lesser slave systems where necessary?

It seems to me that a simple command to reform the bad slavery practices would have been readily accepted; especially when there was the perfect model that you showed that could have been shown to anyone who might resist the calls to reform.

I hope you can see where my confusion is coming from.

As to your next answer, I am not trying to say what you state isn’t correct or anything.
I assume that, in the original language, the words that are used for a slave “belonging” to a slave owner are different from the words used in the cite saying that the child “belongs” to the slave owner.
Would that be a correct assumption?

The reason I ask is that in many, if not most, slave systems the off-spring are considered property of the slave owner, much as a calf is owned by the owner of the cow. As such the calf is property that can be willed to others or sold or given to others, in the owner’s lifetime.

As to your last answer, yes it was a very long thread. I read it and all the links to other threads and cites in it.

I didn’t want to waste everyone’s time by asking about something that had already been well explained.

I read the explanations, but I found them lacking. That is why I phrased my question as I did.

The slaves held jobs and those jobs would have still been in need of being done.
The only difference would have been that now the jobs would be done by free men.

There was housing in already place for the slaves. The owners of this housing wouldn’t have suffered any loss because the now freed slaves would be needing housing and would have paid rent just like any other free man renting housing.

Under the slave system you describe Islam as having no one was over worked, everyone loved their master and was treated fairly.
Many of them loved their masters so much they happily had children by their masters.

I don’t understand with a system in place like the one you describe why there would be a need to end it and not do the better thing of leaving it in place just to show the unbelievers just how nice a slave system modeled after Islam could be.

I don’t understand how simply converting the jobs from a slave job to a paying job would have been so hard on anyone.

As you have stated the slaves under Islam had a very high standard of living, they ate what their owners ate and dressed as their owners dressed. The slaves were more or less treated as family members under Islam as you described it.

If I read some of your posts correctly, most slaves earned money that they used to buy their freedom if they decided to become freemen and free women.

I hope you can understand why I am having a hard time understanding why it would have been such a hardship on the Islam, you have described, to have moved from a slave system to a capitalist system or to have just kept the ideal slave system.

I can understand why it might be a hardship in this day and age, because everyone agrees no truly Islamic state exists. But I have seen it posted that for many years a number of truly Islamic states existed.

Thanks for taking the time to try and clear up some of my confusion, but as you see I am stilled some what confused.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-08-2006, 12:12 PM
Hi Nimrod,
Originally Posted by nimrod
I knew that just wouldn’t make any sense. Islam allows for punishment for a free man to consist of 40 lashes
For criminal offences!!
I can see what you are saying about not beating or abusing anyone though.
I would assume that giving lashes as punishment when the slave had done nothing wrong would be abusive, but if they had committed some offense then it isn’t abuse, it is punishment.
No one has the authority to give out punishments in the name of the government. If the slave has committed a crime then it will be dealt with under a proper investigation by the courts. Whipping is a serious issue and far more severe than most beatings, hence it is definitely unacceptable.
If I understood the reasoning correctly, Islam ended slavery because of the abuses some people suffered under lesser slave systems.
Yet the system of slavery as you describe it under Islam seems about as just and fair as any slave system could get.

I was under the impression that one of the reasons you had given for slavery’s gradual ending was that the command to end it quickly would have been strongly resisted by slave owners.

What has left me confused is that with a slave system in place like the one you describe, then why the need for ending it and not just issuing commands to reform the lesser slave systems where necessary?

It seems to me that a simple command to reform the bad slavery practices would have been readily accepted; especially when there was the perfect model that you showed that could have been shown to anyone who might resist the calls to reform.
Once the injustices and abuses were removed and rights were guaranteed for slaves, the important steps had been taken towards the gradual removal of slavery, but it did not end there. Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves and mandated it in many cases. Once slaves are seen as equals with their masters then the practice of slavery naturally weakens and dissolves.

I assume that, in the original language, the words that are used for a slave “belonging” to a slave owner are different from the words used in the cite saying that the child “belongs” to the slave owner. Would that be a correct assumption?
No, it is a matter of looking at the context of the sentence.
The reason I ask is that in many, if not most, slave systems the off-spring are considered property of the slave owner, much as a calf is owned by the owner of the cow. As such the calf is property that can be willed to others or sold or given to others, in the owner’s lifetime.
But in Islamic law this is not the case.
The slaves held jobs and those jobs would have still been in need of being done.
The only difference would have been that now the jobs would be done by free men.

There was housing in already place for the slaves. The owners of this housing wouldn’t have suffered any loss because the now freed slaves would be needing housing and would have paid rent just like any other free man renting housing.
This is like I said in my last post - ultimately you acknowledge that the best position is for them to stay with the same jobs, same shelter and the same family but with rights, good treatment and wages. Where were these slaves going to get the money to pay rent? From the work they were doing? So basically the ex-master is just paying himself. It is no different from what was described earlier.
I don’t understand with a system in place like the one you describe why there would be a need to end it and not do the better thing of leaving it in place just to show the unbelievers just how nice a slave system modeled after Islam could be.
Because Islam sought the gradual removal of slavery.
I don’t understand how simply converting the jobs from a slave job to a paying job would have been so hard on anyone.
What you are proposing is that the ex-master pays himself, which essentially is the same as a non-paying job.

Regards
Reply

nimrod
05-10-2006, 01:55 AM
Ansar Al-‘Adl, thanks for the reply.

If a man who owns a bakery also rents an up stairs room to his baker, is he just paying himself? Is it that simple?

Ansar Al-‘Adl bear with me as I seek the answer to one last question on this thread, according to the teachings of Islam, if a slave was to be punished; what is the proper steps to go through to punish that slave?

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

chitownmuslim
06-21-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally Posted by Chuck
Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.
Very well said, i dont see anything wrong with having a "servant", whom I treat with respect and give shelter and food to.
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
06-21-2006, 09:32 AM
[QUOTE] Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage). [QUOTE]

I KNOW ITS KNDA LAST MINUTE BUT WHY DIDNT THEY JUST MARRY THE SLAVES IN STEAD OF HAVING SEX WITH THEM and that being the only thing???

i
Reply

HeiGou
06-21-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
I KNOW ITS KNDA LAST MINUTE BUT WHY DIDNT THEY JUST MARRY THE SLAVES IN STEAD OF HAVING SEX WITH THEM and that being the only thing???
Could you use lower case please? It looks like you're shouting. I do not know and I doubt that anyone could say for sure because you would have to go on a case-by-case basis asking each and every person who did it. One thing that strikes me though is presumably a slave would not be counted towards the four legal wives. Is that right?
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
06-21-2006, 11:24 AM
dunno, at least don thinks so.....
p.s sorry for the capitals im crap at typing...whahhahaha

subhanAllah
Reply

Al-Zaara
06-22-2006, 01:20 PM
[quote=DAWUD_adnan;366247][quote] Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage).

i
:sl:

I have a question I have been wondering.

A man who has a female slave and has a sexual relationship with her.
This man also has a wife. So if this wife has a male slave, can she too be allowed to have a sexual relationship with him? :?

:w:
Reply

Mohsin
06-22-2006, 01:28 PM
I have a question I have been wondering.

A man who has a female slave and has a sexual relationship with her.
This man also has a wife. So if this wife has a male slave, can she too be allowed to have a sexual relationship with him? :?
i think there are different opinions, but if she has a husband then she can't. If she doesn't have a husband then i think scholars differ. maybe someone more knowledgable can answer
Reply

Al-Zaara
06-22-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
i think there are different opinions, but if she has a husband then she can't. If she doesn't have a husband then i think scholars differ.
:sl:

But wouldn't it be kind of unfair towards the wife...?
Her husband can fulfilll his sexual needs from other women and she just has to get satisfied by this one man, when he has many others?... :X
And maybe she doesn't even get her needs fulfilled... And yet she is not allowed to have relationships just like her husband, who let's face it, lives life the fullest?...:hiding:

It's just that it seems a bit unfair... Not like women, when in love, want any other man, but who wouldn't feel kind of used when the man seeks satisfaction from other women, maybe more beautiful and just his slaves, while she, the wife, stays true to him and yet the man seeks other?...
The woman would feel "half" (I know I would!) and not good enough for her husband, whos wife should be everything he'd want and desire...

I don't want to sound angry or anything, I am just wondering...
Though I'm sure the husband would say it's just physical and he is not "in love" with the other women (his slaves)...

Wow, I'm just talking... Hopefully I didn't confuse anything, I just would like clear answers, Inshallah.

maybe someone more knowledgable can answer
Yes, Inshallah.

:w:
Reply

sonz
06-22-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Aafreen
:sl:

But wouldn't it be kind of unfair towards the wife...?
Her husband can fulfilll his sexual needs from other women and she just has to get satisfied by this one man, when he has many others?... :X
And maybe she doesn't even get her needs fulfilled... And yet she is not allowed to have relationships just like her husband, who let's face it, lives life the fullest?...:hiding:

It's just that it seems a bit unfair... Not like women, when in love, want any other man, but who wouldn't feel kind of used when the man seeks satisfaction from other women, maybe more beautiful and just his slaves, while she, the wife, stays true to him and yet the man seeks other?...
The woman would feel "half" (I know I would!) and not good enough for her husband, whos wife should be everything he'd want and desire...

I don't want to sound angry or anything, I am just wondering...
Though I'm sure the husband would say it's just physical and he is not "in love" with the other women (his slaves)...

Wow, I'm just talking... Hopefully I didn't confuse anything, I just would like clear answers, Inshallah.



Yes, Inshallah.

:w:
chk this out

Question


Hi, as-salaamu alaikum,

I am confused about the following statement that is often a part of verses you quote from the Qur'an:

"(a captive) that your right hands possess"

What exactly is "a captive that your right hands possess"? It was always my understanding that Islam forbade slavery as slavery and equality contradicted one another.

I would appreciate if you could explain.

Regards, wa'salaam



Answer


Wa `alaykum salaam waramatullah wabarakatuh!

Dear sister Julia, thanks for your question.

You are right. Islam forbade slavery for it is the religion that gives rights of individuals, males or females. It made this as clear as daylight, many centuries ago, before the slogan of “human rights” came to be known to the Westerners.

Slavery was not initiated by Islam, it had been in practice long before the advent of Islam. As we know, it’s the custom of war to have captives and those captives or prisoners used to be turned into slaves and concubines by their masters. This was not the case only in the pre-Islamic Arab regions, but it was there every other place. It was even worse in some societies, especially with women. She was subject to all kinds of injustice, oppression and barbarian treatment. This went as far as that Greeks used to consider her a mere commodity, to be bought and sold. As for Romans, she was a slave already by nature, even without being captured at war!

In short, Islam is not the religion that jeopardizes the rights of woman, as Western scholars would have us believe, concocting any ideas to distort the image of Islam. Was it Islam that considered woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No! This took place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the day in the past Western civilizations. Yes, it was also the habit in the pre-Islamic Arab, when female babies used to be buried alive.

When Islam came, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done gradually, as the case with all bad habits that have gained ground. People never give up easily!

So, first of all it confined the issue of taking captives to the period of warfare. This is just as a situation necessitated by hostility between warring states. Then it allowed the female captives to be married by their captors. But why? Does this mean giving men a golden chance to unleash their sexual desires or to sexually brutalize those captives? No, not at all!

Here lies certain wisdom that completely escapes the mind of those Western scholars, who take this issue to launch attacks against Islam.

As we know, after the end of hostility, it’s the norm that prisoners of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their dignity.

Thus, Islam gave them hope of survival, trying to prevent their becoming prostitutes. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors, even from among their free male counterparts, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, this hope soon turned glittering by securing them a marital home, whereby their rights and dignity would be secured.

Here comes the issue of “ma malakat aimanukum” (what your right hands possess). This is mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an, like the following:

If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: ...

Surah 4 Verse 25

This verse confirms what I have just said; opening the door for female slaves or captives to be married by destitute Muslims who cannot afford the dowry of free women. Notice here that the Qur’an uses the expression “what your right hands.” What is the significance of this expression?

The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.

Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess” also has another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”

All this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages.

All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet (pbuh) made this clear in his hadith that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He said:

“Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”

As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet, as saying:

“If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”

You see; that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. They should definitely be well treated. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogative names of “slaves” or “servants”. For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed by “fatah” (boy) or “fatat” (girl). Besides, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.

What’s more, Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era; i.e. the custom of having intercourse with female captives. Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom. So would her child, for he’d be born free then. What a wise approach to eliminate a bad habit! So it was not a means of unleashing sexual desires. Otherwise, it would have been something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter how. No, Islam was not after such a sensual and voluptuous goal.

Sister Julia, to cover all the aspects of humane treatment of slave women in Islam, it’d take volumes of books. So I think this brief remark will do for now.

For more information, you can check this link:

Does Islam allow Slavery?

If you have any further inquiry don’t hesitate to contact us. Thanks.

Mr. Lamaan Ball editor of Ask About Islam adds:

Islam effectively prohibited slavery by prohibiting making people slaves in any way except temporarily during wars. Once the war is over, such people must either be freed by negotiation and ransom (e.g. exchanges of prisoners of war) or set free without any ransom.

There were many ways that existing slaves could become freed including those mentioned by Kamal but also to gain God’s forgiveness for doing a sin, setting a slave free was commanded in the Qur’an. Freeing slaves was also one of the clear priorities for government spending of Zakat(obliged charity spending administered by the state).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE
Reply

Al-Zaara
06-22-2006, 07:15 PM
:sl:
JazakAllah khair for the article, brother sonz!!! :)
That article really clarified some things I was wondering about, about that female slaves being used as "sexual satisfaction tools" for men, how they can be freed etc...
Thank you. :thankyou:

:w:
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 04:53 AM
OK, I saw this on the other topic:

Yes, but the only exception is the slave-girls. If one is at war, far away from his wives for an extended period of time, and he captures slave-women, he can legally have intercourse with them.

I think that's completely disgusting.

Is this religion really for men? It seems that way sometimes. Just take the women and use them for your own sexual pleasure because they are slaves and you have "captured" them, and yet you have wives and children at home.

Then should the man not be stoned or something? If he wants to rape or have sex with a slave woman when he has a wife, I think he should.

How sick is this? Uggh, I feel like throwing up.
Reply

searchingsoul
08-03-2006, 05:06 AM
Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
OK, I saw this on the other topic:

Yes, but the only exception is the slave-girls. If one is at war, far away from his wives for an extended period of time, and he captures slave-women, he can legally have intercourse with them.

I think that's completely disgusting.

Is this religion really for men? It seems that way sometimes. Just take the women and use them for your own sexual pleasure because they are slaves and you have "captured" them, and yet you have wives and children at home.

Then should the man not be stoned or something? If he wants to rape or have sex with a slave woman when he has a wife, I think he should.

How sick is this? Uggh, I feel like throwing up.
Men can't control their desires as well as women.
Reply

Les_Nubian
08-03-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Men can't control their desires as well as women.
Well they should certainly learn how to! They shouldn't get an exuse, or get "off the hook" for that. That's the whole test, the whole challenge of life, is it not? Sheeeeeeeeeesh! :heated:
Reply

searchingsoul
08-03-2006, 05:12 AM
Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
Well they should certainly learn how to! They shouldn't get an exuse, or get "off the hook" for that. That's the whole test, the whole challenge of life, is it not? Sheeeeeeeeeesh! :heated:
Well, it certainly is one of the challenges. They rarely rise to this challenge.
Reply

Tania
08-03-2006, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
OK, I saw this on the other topic:

Yes, but the only exception is the slave-girls. If one is at war, far away from his wives for an extended period of time, and he captures slave-women, he can legally have intercourse with them.
In 17th century they used to say: the war prize(victory) for the soldiers is to rape women and kill the children. Without that i think they wouldn't have been:statisfie
Reply

searchingsoul
08-03-2006, 05:15 AM
Originally Posted by mara
In 17th century they used to say: the war prize(victory) for the soldiers is to rape women and kill the children. Without that i think they wouldn't have been:statisfie
Such primal behaviors.+o(
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-03-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally Posted by Les_Nubian
OK, I saw this on the other topic:

Yes, but the only exception is the slave-girls. If one is at war, far away from his wives for an extended period of time, and he captures slave-women, he can legally have intercourse with them.

I think that's completely disgusting.
I see you haven't even bothered to read the thread; this issue was answered in GREAT detail. Just read the following posts:

http://www.islamicboard.com/127799-post10.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/128151-post13.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/150083-post23.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/164411-post28.html

A soldier cannot just 'capture' slave-women. All captives go to the state and they decide on what is the best course of action.
Is this religion really for men? It seems that way sometimes.
You know it really irritates me that you would make such a statement. Just a few days ago you posted allegations about sexism, they were refuted, you asked about a hadith it was explained and it was made very clear to you that there is no preference for either gender in Islam. Only an hour ago you acknowledged my response on the topic refuting mysogynistic ideas. I didn't know that
Thanks for that explanation. :sister:
means, "I'm really not satisifed at all with the response. I have the same misconceptions but I'll just wait and bring them up in another thread." Do I really need to re-paste the verses from the Qur'an and the Ahadith for you? Do I really need to take up dozens of posts repeating myself?
The Prophet said: 'Anyone who cares for three daughter, gives them a good upbringing, marries them to good husbands and treats them well, they will enter paradise. The companions asked, "What about two daughters?" He said, "Even two daughters". They asked what about one daughter? He said "even one". (Sunan Abi Dawûd, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadarak Al-Hâkim)
A man came to Prophet Muhammad asking “ O Messenger of God, who among the people is the most worthy of my good company?” The Prophet said “Your mother”. The man said “then who else?” The Prophet said “Your mother”. The man asked, “then who else?” The Prophet replied “Your mother” When the man asked for the fourth time, only then did the Prophet say, “Your father” ( Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)
The Prophet said: 'Paradise lies at the feet of your mother' (Musnad Ahmad, Sunan An-Nasâ’i, Sunan Ibn Mâjah)
A'isha, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), said: 'A poor woman came to me carrying her two daughters. I gave her three dates to eat. She gave each child a date, and raised the third to her own mouth to eat it. Her daughters asked her to give it to them, so she split the date that she had wanted to eat between them. I was impressed by what she had done, and told the Messenger of Allah P about it. He said, “Allah has decreed Paradise for her because of it”.' (Sahîh Muslim)
The Prophet said: 'Whoever has a daughter born to him, and he did not prefer his son over him, Allah will admit him to Paradise because of her.' (Mustadarak Al-Hâkim)
The Prophet said: 'There is no one who has three daughters, or three sisters, and he treats them well, but Allah will admit him/her to Paradise.' (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad of Bukhârî)
The Prophet said: 'There is no one among my ummah who has three daughters, or three sisters, and he supports them until they are grown up, but he will be with me in Paradise like this – and he held up his index and middle fingers together. (Mu'jam At-Tabarânî)
The Prophet said: 'The best of you is the one who is best to his wife. I am the best of you to his wife and I'm the best to my wife.' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî, Sunan Ad-Dârimî, Sahîh Ibn Hibbân)
The Prophet said: 'The most perfect of the believers in faith are the best of them in moral excellence, and the best of you are the kindest to their wives. (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)
The Prophet said: 'None but a noble man treats women in an honorable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)
The Prophet said: 'I command you to be kind to women.' (Sahîh Bukhârî)
The Prophet said: 'The believer should not harbor hatred towards his wife. If he dislikes something in her, then surely he will be pleased with another quality in her.' (Sahîh Muslim)
The Prophet said to Abd-Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aas, who used to fast all day and pray all night: 'Do not do that. Fast and break your fast, pray qiyaam and sleep, for your body has a right over you, your eyes have a right over you, your wife has a right over you and your visitors have a right over you.' (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)
A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, was asked, "What did the Prophet used to do at home?" She answered, "he kept himself busy helping the members of his household, and when the time for prayer came, he would go out for the prayer". (Sahîh Bukhârî)
The Prophet said: 'Verily among the most evil of people with Allah in ranking on the Day of Resurrection is a man who goes to his wife and whose wife goes to him, and then he spreads her secrets.' (Sahîh Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Abû Dawûd)
The Prophet said: "Iblîs (Satan) sets up his throne on water, then he sends out his armies of devils (to incite humans to do evil). The closest to him of these troops are the ones who cause the most tribulation. One of them comes and says, 'I have done such and such.' Iblîs says, 'You have not done enough.' Then another one comes and says, 'I never left him alone until I created trouble and caused division between him and his wife.' Then Iblîs comes close to this devil and says, 'How excellent you are!' " (Sahîh Muslim)
The Prophet said: 'A woman may be married for four reasons: for her property, her status, her beauty, and her religion; so marry one who is religious, may you be blessed.' (Sahîh Bukhârî)
The Prophet said: 'If any man shows patience with his wife's bad temper, Allah will give him a reward similar to the reward of Ayyub (Job) for his patience, and if any woman shows patience with her husband's bad temper, Allah will give her a reward similar to the reward of Asiyah daughter of Muzahim, the wife of Pharoah (Cf. Qur'an 66:11).' (Al-Kabâ'ir of Adh-Dhahabî)
The Prophet said: 'Consult with women. Indeed, you have some rights over your women and they have some rights over you. It is their right on you that you provide for their food and clothing generously, and your right on them is that they do not let anyone whom you dislike in the house, walking upon your floor. (Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Sunan At-Tirmidhî)
Al-Khansaa’ bint Khidaam complained to the Prophet that her father wanted her to marry someone she didn’t want, saying “I do not wish to accept what my father has arranged.” The Prophet said, “Then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish.” Al-Khansaa’ said, “I have actually accepted what my father has arranged, but I wanted women to know that fathers have no right in their daughter’s matters” (i.e. they have no right to force a marriage on them). (Fath Al-Barî Ibn Hajr, Sunan Ibn Mâjah)
The Prophet said: 'The most perfect believers are the best in conduct and best of you are those who are best to their wives.' (Musnad Ahmad)
The Prophet said: 'The life of this world is bountiful, and the best of the bounties of this world is the righteous woman.' (Sahîh Muslim)
The Prophet said: 'Assuredly, women are the twin halves of men.' (Sunan Abî Dawûd, Sunan At-Tirmidhî, Musnad Ahmad)

Just take the women and use them for your own sexual pleasure because they are slaves and you have "captured" them
First of all, enslavement is not something exclusive to women, so it is not a sexist issue in the first place. Secondly, rapw is abuse and Islam has forbidden all such abuse. In fact, Islam commands the good treatment of slaves.

The Prophet said:
"Whoever strikes his slave or beats him, then his expiation is to free him." (Sahîh Muslim)
They are your brethren; give them to eat what you eat; give them to wear what you wear. (Sunan At-Tirmidhi)
"No one should say, "my slave" as all of you are slaves of Allah." (Bukhari, Muslim, An-Nasaa'ee and Ibn Hibban)
"He who treats his slave badly will not enter Paradise". (Musnad Ahmad)
"You are to honor them and to treat them like your children, and feed them from what you eat" (Musnad Ahmad)
"If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward. " (Sahîh Bukhari)
"A person who frees a Muslim slave, Allah will deliver every one of his limbs from the fire of Hell in return for each of the limbs of the slave (Sahîh Bukhârî, and Sahîh Muslim)

Islam came when the enslavement of men and women was a deeply rooted practice. Islam elevated the status of slaves, forbade poor treatment, restricted sources of slavery and encouraged and mandated the freeing os slaves. The blame of slave abuse should be placed on the unislamic nations who practiced this. The credit of obliterating this evil goes to Islam.
How sick is this? Uggh, I feel like throwing up.
In your last thread I requested that you kindly ask when you have a question. That will help you learn much better that submitting yourself to whatever misconceptions or allegations you come across. Seek clarification when you find something you don't understand. Don't revile your religion because of your lack of understanding. That is disgusting and betrays weak faith.


It is abundantly clear that people are not bothering to read this thread. They expect others to re-post every single time, whichc is completely unfair. The thread will be closed so that people actualy take the time to read it. If one is interested just in the general issue of slavery and Islam they may read a much shorter thread here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...ery-quran.html

:threadclo
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-15-2006, 12:50 AM
*bump*

For the person who asked me, they will find the issue relating to the Banu Al-Mustaliq answered in this thread - in fact the whole story of this incident shows how the Prophet saws saved an entire tribe from slavery.

:w:
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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2014, 03:32 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:42 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 06:13 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-18-2007, 11:32 PM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!