Slave Girls

**Truth_Seeker** · 12-11-2005

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

**Truth_Seeker** · 01-05-2006

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

**MetSudaisTwice** · 01-05-2006

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

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-05-2006

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.

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.

**Truth_Seeker** · 01-18-2006

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

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-18-2006

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.

**shanu** · 01-20-2006

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

**Truth_Seeker** · 01-24-2006

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?

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-24-2006

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.

**MetSudaisTwice** · 01-27-2006

salam
The Prophet SAW said whoever frees a slave, and then marries her, he will be rewareded twice
wasalam

**justahumane** · 01-28-2006

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.

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-28-2006

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

**justahumane** · 01-29-2006

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.

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-29-2006

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

**justahumane** · 01-30-2006

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.

**Mohsin** · 01-30-2006

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

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-30-2006

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

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-31-2006

Originally Posted by Moss

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

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.

**justahumane** · 01-31-2006

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.

**Mohsin** · 01-31-2006

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.

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?

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 01-31-2006

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