My confusion in slavery in islam

I think that the matter what causes here more confusion is the term what we are using. Is there any other possible translation to explain this matter than slave/slavery? Maybe "a prisoner of war"? We might have some sort of image about being slave from other areas like from the old USA and in our minds we compare it to this matter (even we shouldn´t).

@Search :jk:

I guess in my head I now see the transition from the times of slaves and "right hand possess", very much like the spinning arrow head replaced with istikarah, the wife and slave morphed into polygamy laws. 4 maximum.

Just a thought.

format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer

I've just given you the explanation of the verses. There is no such thing as a concubine or simply taking a slave girl for sex, which is what you are alluding to. If the sahabah of Rasoolallah regarded Maariyah RA as one of the mothers of the believers, a title only reserved for his wives, who are you to contradict that? Who are you to say the Prophet PBUH would break Islamic law for extramarital relations?

Where did you get this from? Who told you this? You have "given me the explanation of the verses"? You are a Mufassir of the Qur'aan?

I've told you what 14 from the pre-eminent `Ulamaa of Islaam, the giants in the galaxy of Mufassiroon, have said regarding her, that she was not a wife of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

In case you deliberately overlooked it, I will post it over again:

The view that Hadhrat Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was not a wife of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has been mentioned by the following `Ulamaa:

According to `Allaamah al-Aloosi in Rooh-ul-Ma`aani - and he quotes from Hadhrat `Abdullaah ibn `Abbaas that the opening Aayah of Soorah at-Tahreem was revealed concerning Hadhrat Maariyah, and that she was a slave-girl belonging to Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم – and this is also according to Imaam ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (see Soorah at-Tahreem, 66:1-5), Imaam as-Suyooti in Jalaalayn (Ibid), Imaam ibn Hazm in Jawaami`-us-Seerah, Shaykh Ismaa`eel Haqqi in Rooh-ul-Bayaan, Imaam Nizhaam-ud-Deen an-Naysaaboori in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abu Hayyaan al-Andalusi in Al-Bahr Al-Muheet (Ibid), Imaam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ibn al-Jawzi in Zaad-ul-Maseer fee `Ilm-it-Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ath-Tha`labi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abul Layth as-Samarqandi in Bahr-ul-`Uloom (Ibid), Imaam at-Tabari in his Tafseer (Ibid), and Imaam Muhammad al-Ameen ibn Mukhtaar ash-Shinqeeti in Adhwaa-ul-Bayaan (Ibid). [Soorah al-Mu’minoon, 23:5, 6.]

The `Ulamaa of Islaam for the past 1,437 years have Ijmaa` (consensus) on it. That you have not heard about something does not negate it."

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?

No amount of Muslim countries can repeal a law of the Qur'aan.

If, hypothetically, all the Muslim countries in the world come together and ban Salaah, does that mean Muslims must stop performing Salaah? According to your logic, they should, because "What about all the Muslim countries who have banned it? Don't they count?"

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

But aren't we all exclusive slaves to Allah? I am confused in that aspect.

All people are slaves of Allaah Ta`aalaa. We are the `Ibaad (plural of "`Abd") of Allaah Ta`aalaa. That is why this word is not used when referring to those whom your right-hand possesses. In fact, it is not permissible to refer to them as `Abd or Amah. Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لَا يَقُولَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ عَبْدِي وَأَمَتِي كُلُّكُمْ عَبِيدُ اللهِ، وَكُلُّ نِسَائِكُمْ إِمَاءُ اللهِ، وَلَكِنْ لِيَقُلْ غُلَامِي وَجَارِيَتِي وَفَتَايَ وَفَتَاتِي

"None of you should say "my `Abd" or "my Amah"; all of you (men) are the `Abeed (slaves) of Allaah and all of you (women) are the Imaa' (female slaves) of Allaah. Rather, he should say, "my Ghulaam (boy; lad)", "my Jaariyah (girl)", "my Fataa (young man)", "my Fataat (young lass)". [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim.]

So the very words `Abd and Amah themselves are not to be used.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

Ok. That is totally understandable.

I accept your point in that there are differences in the meaning of slaves and is demonstrated by the treatment given.

Now, in this day and age, if the terminology is somewhat 'strayed' from what was originally intended, perhaps the word "slave", for this purpose should be substituted to a word that would be better understood.

Servant? Helper? Assistant? Worker?

The fact that this person is given the option to buy his freedom begs a another question. Do we have people who are property of others in this way? Officially, we are mostly just slaves of the financial intitutions. We buy back our freedom when we settle our dues with them .

Then again, after 1400 years of islamic civilsation surely the slaves of the tribes of Quraysh would have assimilated (is that the right word- like mix in,) into the society and would have become a thing of the past.

For example, people given their freedom, bought their freedom, or bore children, and the children are no longer slaves, ending a generation of slaves, eventually dying out.

Allhu alem.

Still, in place of concubines, Allah granted the umah of prophet Muhammad s.a.w., 4 wives, which was never given to any other nation. So do we really need the slaves? Just propose and get married!

A person doesn't have to use the word "slave" if they don't want to. If, like you say, they want to choose a different word instead so as to avoid confusion between slavery as the Kuffaar perceive it to be (on account of how they used to treat people) VS the Islaamic concept of slavery (which is more along the lines of brotherhood). Like we mentioned earlier, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said not to use the word `Abd but to use the word "Ghulaam" instead. Now, "Ghulaam" literally means a "youngster". So the word itself shows you how very differently people are treated in Islaam as compared to all other religions and societies.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

This makes a lot of sense, ma'sha'Allah.

When I was younger, I even found the concept of slavehood to Allah swt somewhat 'unattractive' sounding, and that lies in the fact that the western concept of slavery is extremely negative. Via the media, books, or films, we're taught that slavery, as in bondage to a master, is the least dignified, most awful way of living.

When looking at it from that perspective, it seems very 'wrong' so to speak.

JazkaAllah khayr for that answer, akhi .

آمين يا رب العالمين

بارك الله فيك

format_quote Originally Posted by Little_Lion

I think the very blunt question everyone is trying to get at here is, does Islam TODAY allow slavery? Are the actions of groups like ISIS, who are taking slaves from the areas that they conquer, abiding by the rules set out in the Qur'an when they take females without their permission? Could I, according to Islam, hypothetically go to Syria and buy myself a slave tomorrow?

Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?

Sister

There are many hadith telling not to touch women and children even during war and how can a hadith CONTRADICT itself by saying take those women as slaves ??

So ONLY those women who fought the muslims in the battle or present on the battle field are allowed to be taken as prisoners of war ie as Slaves. Not like Isis does going and picking up from the Market place those women they like from a war torn state. For such cases they will come under this hadith qudsi

“Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

By Marriage with a slave girl the slave girl gets half rights of a married free women and similarly in hadd punishments gets only half as well, Such women are so called concubines ( ie a wife but with lesser rights) , but they cant be forced to sex and has to be married but with lesser conditions as well of a free women's marriage like Wali is not needed. But if they gave birth to a child she becomes a free women and no more a slave.


BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS A MARRIAGE FOR SLAVES ALSO seen here

The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)
Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3328
Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army.Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the
morning of the warned ones (al-Qur'an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him. He (the narrator) said: He had been under the impression that he had said that so that she might spend her period of 'Iddah in her(Umm Sulaim's) house. (The woman) was Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) arranged the wedding feast consisting of dates, cheese, and refined butter, and pits were dug and tiers were set in them dining cloths, and there was brought cheese and refined butter, and these were placed there. And the people ate to their fill, and they said: We do not know whether he (the Holy Prophet) had married her (as a free woman), or as a slave woman. They said: If he (the Holy Prophet) would make her wear the veil, then she would be a (free married) woman, and if he would not make her wear the veil, then she should be a slave woman. When he intended to ride, he made her wear the veil and she sat on the hind part of the camel; so they came to know that he had married her.

Most people when they think of slavery, they think of the way how the Kuffar, and the West did, and how Firawn and other Firawns treated slaves.

A slave is depicted as someone imprisoned and enslaved to the desires of the owner.

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

(Peace be upon you)

But slavery was indeed repealed by Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him). Though the repeal wasn't able to be sustained when the Persian Empire fell, Caliph Umar did understand the repeal to be the goal of Islam which is why he'd issued the original edict during his reign. And we know from Prophet that the understanding of shariah (Islamic law) was extremely correct with Umar due to numerous ahadith (prophetic traditions) pointing the same and that also that he was a rightly guided and a divinely inspired, truthful legislator.

Also, Muslim abolitionists in the 19th century also did argue for eradication of slavery based on their understanding of the institution as not endorsed by Islam but one that due to being a remnant of jahilliyah in pagan Arabia was an institutionalized practice which Islam sought to gradually eradicate from societies with the encouragement in the Sunnah, which is a big part of how we emulate Prophet .

So, the analogy of salah (prayer) is not apt in this case, because salah is fardh (required) and one of the five essential pillars of Islam. However, slavery is not fardh (required) nor wajib (obligatory) nor recommended as per the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) which is extremely clear that freeing the slave is the spirit of Islam.

For the record, there is nothing in Islam for which we should apologize or about which anyone need think badly; that said, we should also be careful when we talk about slavery or any other aspect of Islam as Islam is holistic and based on human rights and concern for humanity more so than any other religion and to not be able to understand that is to not be able to understand Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

No amount of Muslim countries can repeal a law of the Qur'aan.

If, hypothetically, all the Muslim countries in the world come together and ban Salaah, does that mean Muslims must stop performing Salaah? According to your logic, they should, because "What about all the Muslim countries who have banned it? Don't they count?"

(And peace be upon you)

That which you mentioned, sister, about Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه abolishing slavery: It's something we've always heard, but for some time now I've been trying to find the source of that narration in any of our reliable Kitaabs of Islaamic history, and have not as yet come across it. I know that certain `Ulamaa from the Indo-Pak subcontinent like Maulana Shibli Nu`mani has mentioned it, but we need the find the actual source of this claim, which of the Mu'arrikheen (historians of Islaam) have narrated it, etc.